The Journal of Hellenic studies

ap apne pe
ΤΩΣ
Ξ

pase Στ εες,
Δ ΚΡ, a
ΣΑΣ ors
aerate

Sans
ey ἊΣ

ΓΚ :
g τ
272 eta egtfahes “7
ΠΡ ΠΣ
Gs

Le

τ
lee,

᾿ ΖΞ
Y a 7 otto
OL, ἥ tile 272 eerie
ELLE ee Aree

ee,

pases oe ΣΖΞ

2:5 “-
72 5 6 Z
ΡΞ ; Zs ΖΖΩΩ Lis Lie ΡΖ:
ty 272 ; ΞΞΖΞΩ j 7: ἌΣ
κ LLL Zi me _ Che Mer
Lee 5 Z ero 7 LEG EY ΙΖ,

se,

; poy a meena tg en eA

geese 5 ΖΞ 7 : y eee Le
Pa EE a Lie 7 2 7 2 “ey 7 , ΩΣ 4 ; Gy 4
Ξ 23 eee “2: ΟΣ ee, ant, aps ἘΣ we

ee τ 4 ΚΣ,

2
rs
σον
“-

Nee

ee
SALA

ΦΧ
ἐν

25:

eee? tom
ΣΧ ΖΩΣ τ τς ἀγα ας τ κα τος ὭΣ ::-
Poe, en nan pa SELAH room a eS

2 δον eee cart

Soran moran ime —
“22:5: ΣΧ 7 τὶ
Oe ne ayn y= tS
ΞΕ: Ζ
ar ἐκ τιν αι

wera
aot bongs

ei aaa

ΠΩΣ
Vea Rea ips

ape ceer ase r—

THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES

THE JOURNAL

HELLENIC STUDIES

VOLUME IT
1881

KRAUS REPRINT

Nendeln/Liechtenstein
1971

Reprinted by permission of
THE SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES

KRAUS REPRINT
A Dwision of
KRAUS-THOMSON ORGANIZATION LIMITED
Nendeln/Liechtenstein
1971
Printed in Germany

oO” CO Sa er on um 6 UE) μὲ

μι μὲ
περ

12.
18,

CONTENTS.

Emies of the Society . wipe AY ener led me jolts
List of Officers and Members
Transactions of the Seciety—1881

. Statuette of Athent Parthenos—C. T, NEwron

. Homeric and Hellenic Ilium—R. C. JEBB . . ....

. Contributions to the History of Southern Aeolis, .—W. M. Ramsay.
. Bust of Perseus (Pl. IX.)—A. 5. Murray.

. Kylix with Exploits of Theseus (Pl. X.)—Crcit SMITH

. Votive Armour and Arms (Pl. XI.)—W. GREENWELL

. Stairs to Pandroseum at Athens—J. FERGusson

. Boat-races among the Greeks—P. GARDNER.

. An Inscription at Cambridge (C. I. G. 106)—E. L. Hicks

Inscriptions from Dodona, II.—E, S. Roserrs

. Exploration of the Bocotian Orchomenus (Pl. XII., XIIJ.)—

H. ScHLIEMANN. .
On the Authenticity of the Olympian Register—J. P. MAHAFFY

On some Ionic Elements in Attic Tragedy, I].—A. W. VERRALL

MISCELLANEA :—

14,

15.
16.

The Pentathlon—E. Myrrs

Notes and Rectifications ; Pamphylian Inscription—W. M. Ramsay
Corrigenda ; Inscriptions on two Vases—C. SMITH.

The Ram in Aeginetan Sculpture—A. S. MuRRAY

Where was Dodona ?—BisHor oF LINCOLN

Byzantine Satire—H. F. Tozer
Contributions to the History of Southern Aeolis, II—W. M. Ramsay .
Actors with Bird-Masks on Vases (Pl. XIV.)—CrEcIL SMITH .

309

CONTENTS.
. Boat-races at Athens—P. GARDNER. . ... -
. Perspective as applied.in Early Greek Art (Pl. XV.)—A. S. Murray .
. Onan Archaic Earring—AMELIA B, Epwarps

20. Statuette of Pallas from Cyprus (Pl. XVI.)—P. GarpNER

21. Pythagoras of Rhegion and the Early Athlete Statues, II. —

C. WALDSTEIN .

. A New Diadumenos Gem—S. Convin

. On an Unedited Rhodian Inscription—C. T. Newron .
24. Inscription from Kalymnos—C. Τὶ NEwron .

25. On two Inscriptions from Olympia—D. CoMPARETTI

. The Battle of Marathon—W. W. Lioyp

CLASSIFIED TABLE OF CONTENTS.

I.—EXCAVATION AND TRAVEL.

PAGE
Bisnorp oF LixncotN.—Where was Dodona# . . . 2. 1. we 2. 228
W. M. Ramsay.—Contributions to the History of Southern Aeolis, 1... 44
᾿ - » ΠΟΎΣ 271
Η. ScuLreEMANN.—Exploration of the Boeotian Orchomenus . . . . . 122
II1.—ART AND MANUFACTURE.
Sr U0hVIN.——-A New DiadumenosGem . ..... .. . . . | 9852
AY Β tinowanps:—Onan Archaic Marrmg 5. . «5 ἢ κυ ὦ ὦ « 928
J, FErRGussoN.—Stairs to Pandroseum at Athens . . . ..... . 88
Ρι GARDNER.—Statuette of Pallasfrom Cyprus ........ . 826
W. GREENWELL.—Votive Armourand Arms .......... £465
A. 5. Murrnay.—Bust of Perseus. . . 55
The Ram in Aeginetan Sculpture . .... .. =. 227
᾿ Perspective as applied in Early Greek Art . . . . . 3818
C. T. NEwTon.—Statuette of Athene Parthenos . . ....... 1
(- Satire. —Kylix with Exploits of Theseus . . . .... +... « δὴ
ΝΣ Corrigenda. Inscriptions on Two 8565. . . . .« . . . 225
Actors with Bird-masks on Vases... .. .... . 809

C. WALDSTEIN.—Pythagoras of Rhegion and the Early Athlete Statues, II. 332

II].—PHILOLOGY AND INSCRIPTIONS.

D, CoMPARETTI.—On two-Inscripticns from Olympia . . . . . . . 865
EK, L, Hicks,—An Inscription at Cambridge (C. I. G. 106), . . . . . 98
C, Τὶ Newron.—On an Unedited Rhodian Inscription . . . . . . . 354

+ Inscription from Kalymnos . . . .. +... . - 862

Vili CLASSIFIED TABLE OF CONTENTS.

W. M. Ramsay.—Notes and Rectifications ; Pamphylian Inscription
Ἐς 5. Roserts.—lInscriptions from Dodona, II.

A. W. VERRALL.—On some Ionic Elements in Attic Tragedy, II.

IV.—HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES.

Ῥ, GARDNER.—Boat-races among the Greeks
+ Boat-races at Athens .
R. C. JeBB.—Homeric and Hellenic lium .
W. W. Lioyp.—The Battle of Marathon
J. P, MAHAFFY.—On the Authenticity of the Olympian Register
E, Myrers.—The Pentathlon
H. F, Tozer.—Byzantine Satire

LIST OF WOOD-CUTS, &c.

Statuette of Athen? Parthenos .
Inscription at Azizieh .

As », Menemen .
Lekythos in form of Helmet
Upper part of same
West front of Temple of Athené Polias .
Coin of Nicopolis

ΟΣ ..»..

Map of Site of Orchomenus .

Marble Slab from Treasury at Orchomenus .

Plan of Treasury at Orchomenus
Threshold of Treasury.

Door of Thalamos at Orchomenus .
Threshold of Thalamos . . . .
Pottery from Treasury at Orchomenus
Athlete Leaping (from a Vase) .

Map of Southern Aeolis

Wall of Myrina.

Wall of Temnos

Remains of Temple at Temnos .

Remains at Namriit Kalessi. . .

Boundary Stone of Melampagitae and Heracleotae

287
. 288, 289, 290
. 292, 293, 294

. 296, 297

L

x LIST OF WOOD-CUTS, ETC.

Plan of Tomb near Emir Aalem

Shape of Tile from Aeolic Cities

Decoration of Vase from Phocaea

Shape of Vase 5

Archaic Earring .

Stump of Tree by Choiseul-Gouffier Statue .
Outline of same Statue restored

Statue of Boxer in the Palazzo Gentili
River-gods on Coins of Pandosia and Selinus
A Ἐπ ἘΕΘΕΝΙΕ COIs Sais aS week ol

Two Inscriptions from Olympia

RULES AND LIST OF MEMBERS.

: i δὲ ΤΣ " ἮΝ : ᾿ 5 ᾿
Phat ai? Tad seme Rake diene, > ee
" Ἂ» “ Tie from danallg OMin τὰ . . Ψ ο Ἔν a ἜΣ

Pete ~ilitte ἔραν ἐνῷ δίλνεν,, εν. ᾿
᾿ ᾿ rie
; τ ἢ 5
at & Η iy : ΐ ᾿ τς ‘ ᾿ ᾿
i
ενώ. ᾿οὖνευν“ : Μ = ᾿ ᾿ ¢
7 7

i. 8 δ Poy wy," nes ! oni, ΕῚ Vite ᾿ ~ 7 ᾿

4 we
liw — ρον Wigite He teh a 77 a ᾿
. οἰ σι ἢ - ay. anil 7 7
Sret pls cea! lew ὁ) ἐσμέν «οὐ Pal eta 2. δ᾽
ΕΝ Poe...
4 ᾿ ν᾿"
ὶ

3
oe

Anta M ‘oO Teta ava,

i Pa = (
4
Ἶ =
'
1
ὡ
᾿ς: vy
i
=
.
i | Ne
. :
ad
‘
_
΄
Fa
λ : ͵ ΓῚ
- 2 4
=
᾿
Ρ “
4

RULES

OF THE

SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF
HELLENIC STUDIES.

1. THE objects of this Society shall be as
follows :—

I. To advance the study of Greek language,
literature, and art, and to illustrate the history of
the Greek race in the ancient, Byzantine, and Neo-
Hellenic periods, by the publication of memoirs and
unedited documents or monuments in a Journal to be
issued periodically.

II. To collect drawings, fac-similes, transcripts,
plans, and photographs of Greek inscriptions, MSS.,
works of art, ancient sites and remains, and with
this view to invite travellers to communicate to the
Society notes or sketches of archzological and
topographical interest.

11, To organise means by which members of the
Society may have increased facilities for visiting
ancient sites and pursuing archeological researches
in countries which, at any time, have been the sites
of Hellenic civilization.

2. The Society shall consist of a President, Vice-

Presidents, a Council, a Treasurer, one or more
€

ext

Secretaries, and Ordinary Members. All officers of
the Society shall be chosen from among its Members,
and shall be ex officio members of the Council.

3. The President shall preside at all General,
Ordinary, or Special Meetings of the Society, and
of the Council or of any Committee at which he is
present. In case of the absence of the President,
one of the Vice-Presidents shall preside in his
stead, and in the absence of the Vice-Presidents
the Treasurer. In the absence of the Treasurer,
the Council or Committee shall appoint one of their
Members to preside.

4. The funds and other property of the Society
shall be administered and applied by the Council in
such manner as they shall consider most conducive to
the objects of the Society: in the Council shall also
be vested the control of all publications issued by
the Society, and the general management of all its
affairs and concerns. The number of the Council
shall not exceed fifty.

5. [The Treasurer shall receive, on account of the
Society, all subscriptions, donations, or other moneys
accruing to the funds thereof, and shall make all
payments ordered by the Council.

6. No money shall be drawn out of the hands of the
Treasurer or dealt with otherwise than by an order
of Council, and a cheque signed by two members
of Council and countersigned by a Secretary.

7. The Council shall have power to elect from
among their Members a Standing Committee for the
management of the ordinary business of the Society,
such Standing Committee not to exceed twelve in
number, of whom one-fourth shall retire annually,

xv

but shall be eligible for re-election if they continue
Members of the Council.

8. The Standing Committee shall meet as often
as they may deem necessary for the despatch of
business.

g. Due notice of every such Meeting shall be sent
to each Member of the Committee, by a summons
signed by the Secretary.

10. Three Members of the Committee, provided not
more than one of the three present be a permanent
officer of the Society, shall be a quorum.

11. All questions before the Standing Committee
shall be determined by a majority of votes. The
Chairman to have a casting vote.

12. The Council] shall meet twice in each year to
determine all questions which may be referred to
them by the Standing Committee or by Members,
and to prepare an Annual Report, to be submitted
to a General Meeting of the Society.

13. At these meetings of the Council the Standing
Committee shall submit to them a Report of their
proceedings since the last meeting of the Council, and
the Treasurer shall also submit an abstract of the
Receipts and Expenditure during the same interval.

14. The Secretary shall give notice in writing to
each Member of the Council of the ordinary days of
meeting of the Council, and shall have authority to
summon a Special and Extraordinary Meeting of the
Council on a requisition signed by at least four
Members of the Council.

xvi

15. Members of Council shall at all times have freé
access to the Minutes of Meetings of the Standing
Committee.

16. Two Auditors, not being Members of the
Council, shall be elected by the Society in each
year.

17. A General Meeting of the Society shall be held
in London in June of each year, when the Reports of
the Council and of the Auditors shall be read, the
Council, Officers, and Auditors for the ensuing year
elected, and any other business recommended by
the Council discussed and determined.

18. The President, Vice-Presidents, Treasurer,
Secretaries, and Council shall be elected by the
Members of the Society in a General Meeting.

19. The President and Vice-Presidents shall be
appointed for one year, after which they shall be
eligible for re-election at the Annual General
Meeting.

20. One-third of the Council shall retire every year,
but the Members so retiring shall be eligible for
re-election at the Annual General Meeting.

21. The Treasurer and Secretaries shall hold their
offices during the pleasure of the Council.

22. The elections of the Officers, Council, and
Auditors, at the General Meetings, shall be by a
majority of the votes of those present. The
_ Chairman of the Meeting shall have a casting vote.
The mode in which the vote shall be taken shall
be determined by the President and Council,

XV1l

23. Every Member of the Society shall be sum-
moned to the Annual Mecting by notice issued at
least one month before it is held.

24. All motions made at the Annual Meeting shal]
be in writing and shall be signed by the mover and
seconder. No motion shall be submitted, unless
notice of it has been given to the Secretary at least
one fortnight before the Annual Meeting.

25. Upon any vacancy in the Presidency, occurring
between the Annual Elections, one of the Vice-
Presidents shall be elected by the Council to officiate
as President until the next Annual General
Meeting.

26. All vacancies among the other Officers of the
Society occurring between the same dates shall in
like manner be provisionally filled up by the Council
until the next Annual General Meeting.

27. The names of all candidates wishing to become
Members of the Society shall be submitted to a
Meeting of the Standing Committee, and at their
next Meeting the Committee shall proceed to the
election of candidates so proposed: no such election
to be valid unless the candidate receives the votes
of the majority of those present.

28. The Annual Subscription of Members shall be
one guinea, payable and due on the Ist of January
each year; this annual subscription may be com-
pounded for by a payment of £410 Ios., entitling
compounders to be Members of the Society for
life, without further payment.

XVlil

29. When any Member of the Society shall-be sis
months in arrear of his Annual Subscription, the
Secretary or Treasurer shall remind him of the
arrears due, and in case of non-payment thereof
within six months after date of such notice, such
defaulting Member shall cease to be a Member of
the Society, unless the Standing Committee make
an order to the contrary.

30. If at any time there may appear cause for the
expulsion of a Member of the Society, a Special
Meeting of the Council shall be held to consider the
case, and if at such Meeting at least two-thirds of
the Members present shall concur in a resolution for
the expulsion of such Member of the Society, the
President shall submit the same for confirmation at a
General Meeting of the Society specially summoned
for this purpose, and if the decision of the Council
be confirmed by a majority at the General Meeting,
notice shall be given to that effect to the Member in
question, who shall thereupon cease to be a Member
of the Society.

31. The Council shall have power to nominate
British or Foreign Honorary Members. The number
of British Honorary Members shall not exceed
ten.

32. Ladies shall be eligible as Ordinary Members
of the Society, and when elected shall be entitled
to the same privileges as other Ordinary Members.

THE
SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES.

OFFICERS AND COUNCIL FOR 1881-1882.

President,
THE RIGHT REV. THE BISHOP OF DUREAM.

Vice-Presidents,

THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BOWEN.

Εν: R. W. CHURCH,
D.C.L., Dean of St. Paul's.

PROF. SIDNEY COLVIN.
PROF. W. D. GEDDES.

M. J. GENNADIUS.

MR, J. K. INGRAM, LL.D.
PROP Re ΟΣ ΤΕ ΒΒ. LL.D:
THE EARL OF MORLEY.

PROF: C. T. NEWTON, C.B.

REV. PROF. A. H. SAYCE.

MR. E. MAUNDE THOMPSON.

REV. W. H. THOMPSON, D-D.,
Master of Trinity College, Cam-
bridge.

REV. H. F. TOZER.

PROF. R. Y. TYRRELL.

Council.

MR. OSCAR BROWNING.
ROE JAMES BRYCE, D.C.L.,

MR. S. H. BUTCHER.

MR. INGRAM BYWATER.
REVO. Wi. CAPES.

MR. T. CHENERY.

Ee CE SREES W. DILKE, Barrt.,

MR. — A. FREEMAN, D.C.L,

PROF. PERCY GARDNER.

PROF. A. GOODWIN.

REV. E. L. HICKS.

REV. PROF. HORT, D.D.

MR. HENRY JACKSON.

MR. ANDREW LANG.

VERY REV. H. G. LIDDELL, D.D.,
Dean of Christchurch.

RIGHT REV. THE BISHOP OF
LINCOLN.

|
|

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, Barrt., M.P.,

lreasurer.

MR. GEORGE A. MACMILLAN,
Hon. Sec.

REV. PROF. J. P. MAHAFFY.

ΜΕ. Ὁ. B. MONRO.

MR. J. COTTER MORISON.

MR. ERNEST MYERS.

REV. MARK, PATTISON, B.D.,
Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford.

MR. J. PEILE.

MR. H. F. PELHAM.

MR. WALTER PERRY.

REV. E. S. ROBERTS.

MR. J. E. SANDYS.

MR. ARTHUR SIDGWICK.

MR. WILLIAM SMITH, LL.D.

MR. J. A. SYMONDS.

REV. W. WAYTE.

Editorial Committee.

REV. PROF. HORT.
PROF. R. C. JEBB.

MR. INGRAM BYWATER.
PROF. PERCY GARDNER.

Auditors for 1881-82.
| MR. FREDERICK POLLOCK.

MR. DOUGLAS W. FRESHFIELD.

Bankers.
MESSRS. ROBARTS, LUBBOCK, & CO., LOMBARD STREET.

Pel ag alea:

- iS i ta ~ ἣν Ale
7 ’ ta) va ah
Ἄγ: ¥ was
ν᾽ Ὧν Υ ’ =i ' rs Ge
‘ ΠῚ
be a) Ἧ; ἮΝ ἮΝ ἣν δον
DY manera v φάτιν μὴ
' j
’ fo ivr peal} ᾽ ἍΤΕ si ΜΝ
᾿ ἢ μὰ; Wt) i rence
rr
¥ Pal ; 7 ᾽ν" EM yah
x Ps cs
eC Ae ον, δ ς
” eA. τὸν Pa
οἰ "Δ ΩΣ yeas ἌΣ ἣν
Pc io ae ‘
ΠΡ ΟΣ Ἵ, ied;
“TAP ote ee
~ ᾽
W τὴ rr MALY, a ---. Με"
ΟΣ i a 4 pete op
te ort Ἀν uy) he cae
Le ἡ ι Mm." 7 oe
Ἵ } vey be 1.
ἃ 6 Ἁ sbi γ. ‘ee *. “ἢ mi f a
Ν ὶ : ᾿
᾿ ἡ ἱ
4 : ᾿
9 ‘ ro ‘ κι eS a
a PY SEO
Ὶ ον ΝΣ LTP Re a
= HAP as,
TS νὼ Ν Va ey 095
᾿ δ i, wh Oe
λυ SY OK Vas
te ᾿ ἴδῃ : ἐφ} ay hy We) AN a.
ἣν ἢ awl te ἐν ᾿ Dh yy ΝΑ ‘
OS ον ὙΠ Hea ΜῊ
bes WO ETE a pat MA?
\ τ μὰ κοι "te Mh ᾿ ey
' ἐ ἢ sh) Me
AAAI a0" ee
RO ee
yu » Ἐν Pas
ὺ δ ie ll ii
A ie ΠΥΡῚ a Ῥ ἰ λ “(ὦ
tye tah ira Antu Se
μα ¥OuVes 1 Ae
; ΠΑ W opal

septal Api wotiaat

WES Wid tes ]

αν Pw) ee as "Ἢ ph ΔΩ sisal) Ἢ
q y i ifs + «| n* ae δ ἣ ae tata ene
Abhi ga qeutibat Hee)
yO LAF NGA wd Ἧι aM hy, an VEN WF τὰ
Ἔα ' | peeing nee
ἥ πα} GAA ἐλ Sent stan
Ἂς 4. i ‘ j \ ᾽
ag ' : ti ia reNaas τ
~ - Η Uae
͵ ᾿ A : a Ἢ ᾿
᾿ ; γι ; n ὲ A=
r a ue iy " ᾿ iy i al

Cenk:
a,
er δ ΩΣ
Ti ΠΣ by βὸ

ἣ
iF ty hte PhP Les}

f LAT ;

Ἷ ι 3 φῇς

ὴ "i γόνα Ὁ

b ὦ tt hdd,
a at

ἀν ὦ Μὰ
ΠΝ ΕἸΣ
isan: "

Psy Ly

“ea Won, ΒΩ NTE
Ὁ

ἼΜΕΝ ta ὅτ Δ
Ey
τῷ ἀγα

ἜΝ

ἬΝ. Senge

\ (Tiles ie Ns

ay Abe ey & 2¥
Va

ee

ἀρ"

J res:

μν'
wiry’

ae , τ

ΧΧΙ

HONORARY MEMBERS.

His Majesty the King of the Hellenes.

Mr. Alfred Biliotti, H.B.17. Consul at Trebizond.

Prof. H. Brunn, Konigliche Museen, Munich.

Prof. D. Comparetti, /stituto di Studit Superiori, Florence.

Geheimrath Prof. Ernst Curtius, Watthai Kirchstrasse 4, Berlin.

Mr. George Dennis, 1.2.17. Consul at Smyrna.

M. P. Foucart, Director of the French School, Athens.

Prof. W. Helbig, Casa Tarfeia, Monte Caprino, Rome.

Prof. A. Kirchhoff, University, Berlin.

Dr. H. Kohler, Director of the German School, Athens.

Prof. S. A. Kumanudes, University, Athens.

Mr. Charles Merlin, 7.2.47. Consul at the Pireus.

Prof. A. Michaelis, University, Strassburg.

M. B. E. C. Miller, Membre de VlInstitut, 25, Rue de
L’Université, Paris.

M. A. R. Rangabé, Ministére Hellénique, Berlin.

Prof. L. Stephani, Hermitage, St. Petersburg.

M. W. H. Waddington, Membre de (Institut, Rue Dumont
Durville 31, Paris.

M. le Baron J. de Witte, 17. de ?Inst., Rue Fortin 5, Paris.

Mr. Thomas Wood, 4.2.47. Consul at Patras.

LIST OF MEMBERS.

Original Members are marked*,
The other Members have been elected by the Committee since the
Inaugural Meeting.
Abbott, Evelyn, Balliol College, Oxford.
Abbott, Rev. E. A., D.D., 32, Abbey Road, N.W.
*Abercromby, Hon. John, 21, Chapel Street, Belgrave
Sguare, S.W.

*Acland, Prof. H. W., M.D., F.R.S., Broad Street, Oxford.
Aidé, Hamilton, Zhe Garden Mansion, Queen Anne’s Gate.
Ainger, A. C., Eton College, Windsor.

*Antrobus, Rev. Frederick, 7ze Oratory, S.W.

Archer-Hind, R. D., Trinity College, Cambridge.

*Argyll, Duke of, K.T., Argyll House, Campden Hill, W.
Armitstead, F., The School, Uppingham.

*Armstrong, E., Queen’s College, Oxford.

Armstrong, Prof. G, F., Queen’s College, Cork.

XXil

Arnold, E. V., Zriaity College, Cambridge.
Arnold, Matthew, Pazne’s Hill, Cobham, Surrey.
Atkinson, Rev. E., D.D., AMZaster of Clare College, Cambridge.
Bagnold, A. B., 48, Clifton Gardens, Matda Vale, W.
*Balfour, F. M., 7 γέμεέν College, Cambridge.
*Balfour, G. W., Trinity College, Cambridge.
*Balfour, A. J.s M.P., 4, Carlton Gardens, S.W.
Ball, Sidney, Oriel College, Oxford.
Bell, Rev. G. C., Zhe Lodge, Marlborough College.
Bell, Rev. William, Zhe College, Dover.
Benn, Alfred W., care of Manager, London & Co. Bank
Arundel Branch, Sussex.
Bernard, Right Hon. Mountague, 47// Sozls’ College, Oxford, ἡ
Bikelas, Demetrius, 23, Awe Las Casas, Parts.
*Blackie, Prof. J. S., 24, 1711 Street, Edinburgh.
Blackstone, F. E., British Museum, W.C.
Blomfield, A. W., 6, AZontagu Place, Montagu Square, W.
Blore, Rev. Dr., Kzg’s School, Canterbury.
Blore, Rev. E. W., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Blunt, Rev. Gerald, The Rectory, Chelsea.
Boase, Rev. C. W., Exeter College, Oxford.
Bosanquet, B., 131, Eéury Street, SW.
Bosanquet, Rev. F. Ὁ. T., Σημεῖα Cottage, Sandown, Isle
of Wight.
Bousfield, William, 33, Stawhope Gardens, S.W.
Boudouris, Basile N., Parzassos Society, Athens.
Bowen, Hon. Mr. Justice (V.P.) 1, Corzwall Gardens, S.W.
Boyd, Rev. Henry, D.D., Principal of Hertford College,Oxjord.
Bradley, A. C., Balliol College, Oxford.
Bradley, Very Rev. G. ας D.D., The Deanery, Westminster,
S.W.
Bramley, Rev. H. R., JZagdalen College, Oxford.
*Bramston, Rev. J. Τ᾿, Winchester.
Broadbent, H., Eton College, Windsor.
*Broadfield, E. J., Roseleigh, Prestwich, Manchester.
*Brodie, E. H., H.ALL.S., St. Johws House, Worcester.
Brooke, Rev. Stopford A., 1, Janchester Square, W.
Brown, Prof. G. Baldwin, Edinburgh.
*Browning, Oscar (Council), Avvg’s College, Cambridge.
*Brunton, T. Lauder, M.D., F.R.S., 50, Welbeck Street, W.
*Bryce, James, D.C.L. M.P. (Council), 7, Vozfolk Square, W.
Buchanan, T. R., M.P., AW Souls’ College, Oxford.
Bullen, Rev. R. A., Zhe Limes, High Street, Croydon, S.E.
*Burn, Rev. Robert, Trinity College, Cambridge.
*Burrell, Alfred Lloyd, Pad/ Mall Club, Waterloo Place, SW.
Butcher, S. H. (Council), University College, Oxford.
*Butler, Rev. H. M., D.D., Harrow, NV. W.

ΧΧΙΙ

Butler, Arthur J., Wood End, Weybridge.

Butler, Alfred J., Prasenose College, Oxford.

Butler, Rev. George, The College, Liverpool.

Buxton, Ε΄ W., 15, Eaton Place, S.W.

Bywater, Ingram (Council), Exeter College, Oxford.
*Campbell, Rev. Prof. Lewis, St. Andrew’s, N.B.

Capes, Rev. W. W. (Council), Hertford College, Oxford.

Cardpanos, Constantin, 15, Awe de l’ Arcade, Paris.

*Carlisle, A. D., Haileybury College, Hertfordshire.
Carr, Rev. A., Wellington College, Wokingham.
Casdagli, Alexander, 10, Paliwerston Buildings, Old Broad
Street, IEA Gp

Cates, Arthur, 12, York Terrace, Regent's Park.

Chambers, C. Gore, Woburn Park, Weybridge.

Channing, F. A., 3, Brunswick Square, Brighton.

Chavasse, A. S., University College, Oxford.

Chawner, G., Azzg’s College, Cambridge.

Chawner, W., Zvmanuel College, Cambridge.

*Chenery, T. (Council), 3, Novfolk Square, W.

Chettle, H., Statzoner’s School, Bolt Court, E.C.
*Christie, R. C., Darley House, Matlock.

Christian, Rev. G., Redgate, Uppinghant.

*Church, Very Rev. ἘΞ W., D.C.L. (V.P.), The Deanery, St.
Pauls, ἘΠ Ὸ.
*Church, Rev. C. M., Wells, Somerset.

Clarke, Hyde, 32, St. George’s Square, S.W.

Clarke, Rev. R. L., Qucen’s College, Oxford.

Clinton, E. Fynes, Grammar School, Wimborne, Dorset.
*Cobham, C. Delaval, .1..5..17. Commissioner, Larnaca, Cyprus.
*Colvin, Prof. Sidney (V.P.), Trinity College, Cambridge.

Constant, M. le Baron d’Estournelles de, Secrétaire de

? Ambassade de France, 32, Albert Gate, Hyde Park, S.W.
*Constantinides, Prof. M., Hellenic College, 84, Kensington
Gardens Square, S.W.

Conway, W. M., Savile Club, Savile Row, W.

Cook, A. K., Zhe College, Winchester.

Coolidge, W. A. B., Magdalen College, Oxford.

Corrie, E. K., 19, Old Square, Lincoln’s Inn, W.C.

Cotterill, H. B., 11, Léebig Strasse, Dresden.

Courtney, ὟΝ. L., New College, Oxford.

Courtenay, Miss, 34, Bronpton Square, S.W.

Craik, George Lillie, 29, Bedford Street, Covent Garden.

Creighton, Rev. M., Chathzll, Embleton, Northumberland.

Crossley, Prof. Hastings, Queen’s College, Belfast.

Cruikshank, Rev. J. A., Harrow, N.W.

Cruttwell, Rev. C. T., The College, Malvern.

Cust, Lionel A., 77znity College, Cambridge.

XXIV

Cust, Robert Needham, 64, St. George’s Square, S.W.
Dakyns, H. G., Clifton College, Bristol.
Dale, A. W. W., Trinity Hall, Cambridge.
Dasent, Mrs., 110, Sloane Street, S.W.
Davidson, H. O. D., Harrow, N.W.
Davies, Rev. Gerald S., Charterhouse, Godalming.
D’Eichthal, Gustave, 44, Rue Neuve des Mathurins, Paris.
Delyanni, Th. P., Athens.
*Dickson, Τὶ G., Athens.
*Dilke, Sir Charles W., Bart., M.P. (Council), 76, Sloane Streed,
SW.
Dill, S., Grammar School, Manchester.
Donaldson, 5. A., Eton College, Windsor.
Donaldson, James, LL.D., High School, Edinburgh,
Donkin, E. H., The School, Sherborne, Dorset.
Dowdall, Rev. Lancelot R., 18, Buckingham Road, Brighton.
Driver, 5. R., ew College, Oxford.
Duhn, Prof. von, University, Heidelberg.
Duke, Roger, Post-Master General, Matta,
*Durham, Rt. Rev. the Bishop of (Pres.), Auckland Castle,
Bishop Auckland.
Durnford, Walter, Hton College, Windsor.
Easton, Edward, 11, Delahay Street, S.W.
Edmonds, Mrs., Carésbrook, Blackheath, S.E.
Edwards, Miss Amelia B., Zhe Larches, Westbury-on-Trym,
Bristol.
Edwards, G. M., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Ellis, Robinson, 7rzuzty College, Oxford.
Ely, Talfourd, University College, London.
English, W. W., Zhe School, Rugby.
Eumorfopoulo, A., 1, Kensington Park Gardens, W,
Eve, H. W., University College School, London.
Everard, C. H., Eton College, Windsor.
Farnell, L. R., Axeter College, Oxford.
Farrer, Rev. Canon A. S., Durham.
Faulkner, C. J., University College, Oxford.
*Fearon, Rev. W. A., Zhe College, Winchester.
Feetham, T. O., 23, Avundel Gardens, Notting Hill, W’.
Fenning, W. D., Hacleybury College, Hertford,
*Fergusson, James, F.R.S., 20, Langham Place, W.
Field, Rev. T., Harrow, N.W.
Flather, J. H., Cavendish College, Cambridge.
Forbes, W. H., Balliol College, Oxford.
*Fowler, Rev. Prof., Lincoln College, Oxford.
*Fowler, Alderman R. N., M.P., 50, Cornhill, B.C.
Fowler, W. W., Lincoln College, Oxford.
Franks, A. W., F.R.S., Brrtish Museum, W.C.

XXV

Frazer, J. G., Trinity College, Cambridge.
*Freeman, Edward A., D.C.L. (Council), Somerleaze, Wells,
Somerset.

*Freshfield, Douglas W., 6, Stanhope Gardens, S. Kensington.
Freshfield, Edwin, 5, Bank Butldings, E.C.

*Fry, F. J., 104, Pembroke Road, Clifton.

Fyffe, C. A., Lancaster House, Savoy, W.C.

*Gardner, Prof. Percy (Council), British ALuseum, W.C.
Gardner, Miss Alice, Whitehall Lane, Buckhurst Hill, Essex.
Geddes, Prof. W. Ὁ. (V.P.), University, Aberdeen.

*Geldart, Rev. E. M., 3, Denbigh Villas, Lower Addiscombe

Road, Croydon.
*Gennadius, John (V.P.), Greek Chargé @ Affaires, 26, St.

George's Place, S.W.

Gilliat, Rev. E., Harrow, N.W.

Glazebrook, M. G., Harrow, N.W.

Goodwin, Prof. A. (Council), Uxiversity College, London.

Goodwin, Prof. W. W., Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass.,
U.S.A.

Gordon, R. G., King’s School, Canterbury,

Gow, James, 35, Fitzroy Square, W.

Green, John Richard, 14, Kensington Square, W.

Greenwell, Rev. Canon, F.R.S., Durham.

Greenwood, Prof. J. G., Principal of Owens College, Manchester.

Gregory, Right Hon. Sir William H., K.C.M.G., Coole Park,
Co. Galway, and 3, St. George’s Place, S.W.

Griffith, G., Harrow, N.VW.

Guild, Wyllie, Park Terrace, Glasgow.

Guillemard, W. G., Harrow, NIV.

Gurney, John, Sprowston Hall, Norwich.

Gwatkin, Rev. T., 1, St. Mary’s Passage, Cambridge.

Hager, Herman, Owens College, Manchester.

Hallam, G. H., Byron House, Harrow, N.W.

Hall, Rev. F. J., Hacleybury College, Hertford.

Hall, Rev. F. H., Orel College, Oxford.

Hamerton, P. G., Pré Charmoy, Autun, Sadne et Loire, France.

*Harrison, Charles, 17, Queen's Gate Place, South Kensington.
Harrison, Miss J. E., 63, York Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.
Harrison, Mrs. Robert, 73, Cromwell Road, S.W.
Hartshorne, B. F., 11, Meville Terrace, S.W.

Haslam, S., The School, Uppingham.

Hatch, Rev. E., Vice-Principal, St. Mary’s Hall, Oxford.
Hawes, Miss E. P., 89, Oxford Terrace, W.

Hazzopulo, S., Bella Vista, Manchester.

Heberden, C. B., Brasenose College, Oxford.

Hervey, H., 12, Lowndes Street, W.

Heslop, Thomas P., M.D., F.R.C.P., Birminghant.

ΧΧνὶ

Hicks, Rev. E. L. (Council), Ferny Compton Rectory, Leam-
7ngton.
Hirschfeld, Prof. Gustave, Ph.D. Kouigsberg, Germany,
Hodgson, F. C., Education Department, Whitehall.
Holden, Rev. H. A., LL.D., School House, Ipswich.
Hollway-Calthrop, H. C., Stanhoe Hall, King's Lynn.
Hornby, Rev. J. J., D.D., Eton College, Windsor.
Horner, H. B., The College, Marlborough.
Hort, Rev. Prof., D.D. (Council), S¢. Peters Terrace, Cambridge.
Horton, E. R., University College School, London.
Howorth, Henry H., Derby House, Eccles, Manchester.
Howson, Very Rev. J. S., D.D., Deanery, Chester.
Hughes, Rev. W. Hawker, /esus College, Oxford.
Hunt, William, Pex Villa, Yeovz?.
Ingram, J. K., LL.D. (V.P.), Zvénity College, Dublin.
Ionides, Luke A., 16, Holland Villas Road, W.
Jackson, Henry (Council), 7vznity College, Cambridge.
Jackson, Rev. Blomfield, Kéug’s College School, Strand.
Jackson, Rev. W. W., Exeter College, Oxford.
Jackson, T. G., Devereux Chambers, Temple.
*James, Rev. H.A., Rossall, Fleetwood.
James, 5. R., Eton College, Windsor.
Jassonidy, A. J. Lzmassol, Cyprus.
Jeans, Rev. G. E., Hatleybury College, Hertford.

*Jebb, Prof. R. C., LL.D. (V.P.), University, Glasgow.
Jenkinson, F. J. H., Zrintty College, Cambridge.

Jex-Blake, Rev. T. W., D.D., Rugéoy.

Johnson, Harry, 92, Lansdowne Road, Notting Hill, W.
Jones, E. Burne, Zhe Grange, North-end Road, Fulham.
Kastorchis, E., A¢herts.

Keep, R. P., Easthampton, Mass., U.S.A,

Ker, W. P., Ad/ Souls’ College, Oxford.

King, Rev. J. R., St. Peter’s Vicarage, Oxford.
Lambros, Spiridion, A thems.

*Lang, R. Hamilton, Otfoman Bank, 26, Throgmorton St., E.C.
Lang, Andrew (Council), 1, Marloes Road, Kensington, W.
Langhorne, Rev. John, Cathedral School, Rochester.

*Lascaridi, George P., Acting Consul-General for Greece,

25, Old Broad Street, E.C.
Leaf, Walter, Old Change, E.C.
Lee, J. F., 10, Bismarck Platz IV., Dresden.
Leighton, Sir Frederick, P.R.A., Holland Park Road, W.
Levander, H. C., University College School, London.

*Lewis, Rev. 5. S., Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.

*Leycester, Rafe, 6, Cheyne Walk, S.W., or Toft, Cheshire.

*Liddell, Very Rev. H. G., D.D. (Council), Dean of Christchurch,

Oxford.

XXVil

Liddon, Rev. Canon, Christchurch, Oxford.
*Lincoln, Rt. Rev. the Bishop of (Council), Lzzcoln.
Litchfield, R. B., 4, Bryanston Street, Portman Square.
Little, W., Corpus Christi College, Oxford.
Livingstone, Rev. R. G., Pembroke College, Oxford.
Lloyd-Roberts, H., 1, Pump Court, Temple.
Lock, Rev. W., Avdle College. Oxford.
*Lubbock, Sir John, Bart., M.P. (Treasurer), High Elms,
Hayes, Kent. :
Ludlow, T. W., 244, East Thirteenth Street, New York.
Lushington, E. L., Park House, Maidstone, Kent.
Luxmoore, H. E., Eton College, Windsor.
Lyttelton, Hon. E., Wellington College, Wokingham.
*Macan, R. W., Christchurch, Oxford.
Macmillan, Alexander, 29, Redford Street, Covent Garden.
*Macmillan, George A.(Hon. Sec.),29, Bedford St.,CoventGarden.
Macmillan, Mrs. George A., 10, A/fred Place, Thurloe Sq., SW’:
Macmillan, M. C., Anvapdale, Upper Tooting, SAW.
Macnaghten, E., Q.C., M.P., 2, Stone Buildings, Lincoln's
Lip AVG
Magrath, Rev. J. R., Provost of Queen’s College, Oxford.
Maguire, Prof., 27, Upper Sherrard Street, Dublin.
*Mahaffy, Rev. Prof. J. P. (Council), Zr¢uity College, Dublin.
Maine, Sir Henry, K.C.S.I., 27, Cornwall Gardens, S.W., and
Trinity Hall Lodge, Cambridge.
Mann, J.S., Zrinity College, Oxford.
*Martin, John B., 68, Lombard Street, E.C.
Marzellas, John, Swzyviva.
Mavrogordato, Emanuel A., 56, Westbourne Terrace, W.
Mavrogordato, Pandeli, South Sea House, Threadneedle
Street, £.C.
McCarthy, Justin, M.P., 48, Gower Street, W.C.
McEwen, Rev. Alex. Robertson, JZoffat, N.B.
McGregor, Sir Charles R., Bart., 3, Queen’s Gate, S.W.
Meeking, Miss, Azchings Park, Slough.
Melas, Basile, Parnassos Society, Athens.
Melas, Michele, Parnassos Society, Athens.
Merry, Rev. W. W., Lincoln College, Oxford.
*Middlemore, 5. G. C., 78, Oakley Street, Chelsea, S. 177.
*Middleton, H., 4, Storey’s Gate, S.W.
MillermAles. ΘΕ LL:D.
Miller, Thomas, High School, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Mills, Rev. W. H., Grammar School, Louth.
Milner, Alfred, 54, Clavertox Street, S.W.
Minchin, James Innes, 9, Clydesdale Road, Kensington Park, ΤΊ.
Misto, John P., Swzyrna.
Moir, James, Grammar School. Aberdeen.

XXVlli

*Monk, C. J., M.P., 5, Buckingham Gate, S.W.
*Monro, D. B. (Council), Vice-Provost of Oriel College,
Oxford.
Montzopulos, Athanasius, Parnassos Society, Athens.
Moore, H. Keatley, Lower Addiscombe Road, Creydon, S.E.
*Moraites, Prof. D., Hellenic College, 84, Kensington Gardens
Square, W.
Morfill, W. R., 4, Clarendon Villas, Oxford.
* Morison, James Cotter (Council), Clatrvaux, Fitzjohn’s Avenue,
Hampstead.
Morice, Rev. F. D., The School, Rugby.
*Morley, Earl of (V.P.), 45, Rutland Gate, S.W.
Morshead, E. D. A., The College, Winchester.
Moss, Rev. H. W., Zhe School, Shrewsbury.
Moule, C. W., Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
Moulton, Rev. ΝΥ. F., D.D., The Leys, Cambridge.
Myers, Ernest (Council), 12, Hereford Gardens, W.
Myriantheus, The Archimandrite H., 104, /zverness Terrace, W.
Nance, Rev. J. T., St. John’s College, Oxford.
Negrepontis, Menelas, Parnassos Society, Athens.
Neil, R. A., Pembroke College, Cambridge.
Nettleship, R. L., Balliol College, Oxford.
Newman, W. L., Péttville Lawn, Cheltenham.
*Newton, Prof. C. T., C.B. (V.P.), 74, Gower Street, W.C.
Nicolson, Rev. W., The Bible Soctety’s Depot, St. Petersburg.
*O’Brien, Edward, Cahirmoyle, Limerick.
Oddie, J. W., Lygwick Hall, Keswick.
Ogle, Rev. H. C., Magdalen College School, Oxford.
Ogle, J. W., M.D., 30, Cavendish Square, W.
Page, T. E., Charterhouse, Godalming.
Palmer, Ven, Archdeacon, Christchurch, Oxford.
Parker, R. J., Atuy’s College, Cambridge.
Parissis, G., Parnassos Society, Athens.
Parry, Rev. E. St. J., Stoke Hlouse, Slough.
Parry, R. St. J., Zréutty College, Cambridge.
Parsons, Daniel, Stvart’s Lodge, Malvern Wells.
Paton, W. R., Alembers Mansions, Victoria Street, S.W.
Pattison, Rev. Mark, B.D. (Council), Rector of Lincoln College,
Oxford,
Pears, Edward, 2, Rue de la Bangue, Constantinople.
Pearson, Rev. J.B, Emmanuel College, Cambridge.
Peile, John (Council), Chrtst’s College, Cambridge.
Pelham, H. F. (Council), Zveter College, Oxford.
Pember, E. H., Q.C., Vicar’s Hill, near Lymington, Hanis.
*Penrose, F.C., Chapter House, St. Paul’s, E.C.
*Percival, F. W., 15, Conduit Street, W.
Percival, Rev. J., D.D., President of Trinity College, Oxford.

*

ΧΧΙΧ

Perkins, Charles C., 2, Walnut Street, Boston, Mass., U.S.A.
Perry, E. C., Azug’s College, Cambridge.
Perry, Harold Arthur, 42, Queen Anne’s Gate, S.W.
*Perry, Walter C. (Council), 58, Redcliffe Gardens, South
Kensington.
Pesterre, W. A., 37, St. Aubyi’s, Brighton.
Phelps, Lancelot Ridley, Oriel College, Oxford.
Platt, J. A., Zvénzty College, Cambridge.
Pollock, Sir Frederick, Bart., 59, J/ontagu Square, W.
Pollock, Frederick, 48, Great Cumberland Place, W.
Poole, Reginald Stuart, British Museum, W.C.
Porter, Miss Sarah, Farmington, Connecticut, U.S.A.
Postgate, Prof. J. P., 7) γεγζέν Colleve, Cambridge.
Powell, F. York, Christchurch, Oxford.
*Price, Prof. Bonamy, Norham Gardens, Oxford.
Prickard, A. O., New College, Oxford.
Prideaux, Miss Sarah, Goldsmith’s Hall, E.C.
Pritchard, Rev. Prof., The Observatory, Oxford.
Prothero, G. W., King’s College, Cambridge.
Radcliffe, W. W., King’s College, Cambridge.
*Ralli, Pandeli, M.P., 17, Belgrave Square, S.W.
Ralli, Mrs. Stephen A., Cleveland House, Thornton Road,
Clapham Park, S.W.
Ramsay, W. M., Bournabat, Smyrna.
Raper, R. W., Trinity College, Oxford.
Rawlins, F. H., Eton College, Windsor.
Rawnsley, W. F., Winton House, Winchester.
Read, General Meredith, care of Messrs. Munro & Co., 7, Rue
Scribe, Paris.
Reid, J. S., Cazus College, Cambridge.
Rendall, Rev. F., 20, Ladbroke Square, Notting Hill, W.
Rendall, G. H., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Renieri, M. Mario, Athens.
Richardson, B. W., M.D., F.R.S., 25, Manchester Square, W.
*Richardson, H., Zhe College, Marlborough.
Richards, H., Wadham College, Oxford.
*Ridding, Rev. G., D.D., The College, Winchester.
Ridgeway, W., Cazus College, Cambridge.
Rigadis, Eleutherios, Parnassos Society, Athens.
Rivington, Septimus, Waterloo Place, S.W.
Roberts, Rev. E. 5, (Council), Cazus College, Cambridge.
Robertson, Rev. Archibald, Zyinity College, Oxford.
Robinson, G. G., Charterhouse, Godalming.
*Rodwell, G. F., Zhe College, Marlborough.
Rolleston, T. W. H., Lawge Strasse, 29 11., Dresden.
Roscoe, H. W., 69, Cadogan Place, S.W.
Rotton, J. F., 3, The Boltons, S.Vi7_
a

XXX

Routledge, Rev. Canon, S¥. JZartin’s, Canterbury.
Rutherford, W. Gunion, 1, αὐλοῖς Bench Walk, Temple.
Rylands, W. H., 11, Hart Street, Bloomsbury, W.C.

Ryle, H. E., Azzg’s College, Cambridge.

Sagrandi, J. P., Parnassos Soctety, Athens.

*Samuelson, B., M.P., 56, Princes Gate, S. Kensington.

Sandford, F. E..D., 57, Alount Street, W.

Sandys, Frederick.

Sandys, J. E. (Council), St. John’s College, Cambridge.
*Sayce, Rev. Prof. A H. (V.P.), Queen’s College, Oxford.

Schilizzi, Demetrius, Parvnassos Society, Athens.
*Schliemann, Dr. H., Athens.

*Schuyler, Eugene, American Minister, Bucharest, Roumania.
*Sellar, A. C., 75, Cromwell Road, S.W.

Sellar, Prof. W. Y., 15, Buckingham Terrace, Edinburgh.

Sendall, Walter J., 15, Southwell Gardens, South Kensington.

Serghiadis, John, Parxnassos Society, Athens.

Shadwell, C. L., Ortel College, Oxford.

Sharkey, J. A., Christ’s Colleze, Cambridge.

Shaw, E. R., Springteld, Roupell Park, Tulse Hill.

Shuckburgh, E. S., Eton College, Windsor.

Sidgwick, Arthur (Council), Corpus Christ? College, Oxford.

Sidgwick, Henry, 7rznzty College, Cambridge.

Sime, Donald, H.M.I1.S., Bonar Bridge, Sutherland.
*Skinner, J. E. H., 3, Dr. Johnson's Buildings, Temple, E.C.
*Skrine, H. D., Warleigh Manor, Bath.

*Skrine, Rev. J. H., Uppingham, Rutland.

Skuludes, Stephanos, Syra, Greece.

Smith, Arthur, 7vinzty College, Cambridge.

*Smith, Prof. H.J.S.,F.R.S., Corpus Christi College, Oxford.

Smith, J., Azae’s College, Cambridge.

Smith, Cecil, Brztish Museum, W.C.

Smith, William, LL.D. (Council), 94, Westbourne Terrace,

Hyde Park, W.

Snow, T. C., St. Fohn’s College, Oxford.

Sotheby, Mrs., 93, Onslow Square, S.W.

*Spartali, Michael, Hon. Consul-General for Greece, 25, Old
Broad Street, E.C.

Spooner, Rev. W. A., New College, Oxford.

Spring-Rice, S. E., 113a, Queen's Gate, S.W.

Stephenson, Rev. H. M., .52 Peter's School, York.

Stewart, Thos. A., H.M.1.S., Kezth, Banffshire.

St. Hilaire, Marquis de Queux de, 3, Rue Soufflot, Paris.
*Stillman, W. J., 14, Via Alfiert, Florence, Italy.

Stogdon, J., Harrow, N.W.

Stone, Rev. E. D., Eton College, Windsor.

Strachan-Davidson, J. L., Baliol College, Oxford.

ΧΧΧῚ

Street, A. R., St, Chad’s, Denstone, Uttoxeter.

*Stuart, Hon. W., C.B., HBA. Minister, The Hague.
Stubbs, Rev. Canon, D.D., Oriel College, Oxford.

*Sturgis, Julian, 17, Carlton House Terrace, W.

Surr, Watson, 28, 7hreadneedle Street, E.C.

*Symonds, J. A. (Council), Clifton Hill House, Bristol.
Talbot, Rev. E. S. Warden of Keble College, Oxford.
Tarver, J. C., Clifton College, Bristol.

Tatton, R. G., Balliol College, Oxford.

Taylor, Rev. Alex., Athenaum Club, S.W.

Theobald, H. S., 50, Zalbvt Road, W.

Theologos, Pantaleon, Director of the Credit Bank, Athens.

Therianos, Dr., 7rzeste.

Thomas, Rev. T. Ll., Jesus College, Oxford.

*Thompson, E. M. (V.P.), Bretish Museum, W.C,
Thompson, E. S., Christ’s College, Cambridge.

Thompson, F. E., Cotton House, Marlborough College.

Thompson, H. Yates, 26a, Bryanston Square, W,
*Thompson, Rev. W. H., D.D.(V.P.), Jaster of Trinity College,

Cambridge.

Thorley, G. E., Warden of Wadham College, Oxford.

Thring, Rev. E., Uppingham.

Thursfield, J. R., 11, Montague Place, W.C.

Tilley, Arthur, 73, S¢. George’s Square, S.W.

Todd, A. H., Universities Club, Suffolk Street, S.W.
*Tozer, Rev. H. F. (V.P.), 4, Park Villas, Oxford.
*Trevelyan, Sir Charles, Bart., K.C.B., 8, Grosvenor Cres., S.W.
*Trotter, Rev. Coutts, 7rznzty College, Cambridge.

Truell, H. P., F.R.C.S., Clonmannon, Ashford, Co. Wicklow.

Tuck, Rev. A., Zhe School, Uppingham.

*Tuckett, F. F., Frenchay, near Bristol.

*Tuckerman, Hon. C. K., 18, Avenue Kléber, Paris.
Tudeer, Dr. Emil, Helsingfors.

Tylden, H., Aveter College, Oxford.

Tylor, E. B., Linden, Wellington, Somerset.

Tyrrell, Prof. R. Y. (V.P.), Trinity College, Dublin.
*Tyrwhitt, Rev. R. St. J., Keczlby, Oxford.

Tzikos, Pericles, 375, Vza Nazionale, Rome.

Upcott, L. E., The College, Marlborough,

Urquhart, Miss Margaret, 5, St. Colme Street, Edinburgh.
*Valetta, J. N., Principal of Hellenic College, 84, Kensington

Gardens Square, W.

Valieri, Octavius, 2, Kensington Park Gardens, W.

Vaughan, E. L., Eton College, Windsor.

Verrall, A. W., Trinity College, Cambridge.

Vince, C. A., Repton, Burton-on-Trent.

*Vincent, Edgar, 8, Edury Street, S.W.

ΧΧΧΙΪ

Vipan, G. W., University College School, Gower Street.

Waldstein, Charles, Ph.D., Botolph House, Cambridge.
*Ward, Prof. A. W., The Cwens College, Manchester.

Ward, W. W., Cliffe Court, Frenchay, Bristol.

Ward, T. H., 61, Russell Square, W.C.

Warr, Prof. G. C., Aziy’s College, London.

Warre, Rev. Edmond, Evtoz College, Windsor.

Warren, Τὶ H., Magdalen College, Oxford.

Washbourn, Rev. J. R., Cathedral School, Gloucester.

Watson, A. G., Harrow, N.W.

*Way, Rev. J. P., Zhe College, Marlborough.

Wayte, Rev. W. (Council), 6, Onslow Square, S.W.
*Wedderburn, Sir David, Bart., M.P., 104, Pall Mall, S.W.

Welldon, J. E. C., Azxg’s College, Cambridge.

Weymouth, Dr. R. F., ΤΣ Hill, N.W.

Whalley, J. Buxton, 46, Queen's Gate Terrace, S.W.

Whibley, C., Jesus College, Cambridge.

White, A. Cromwell, 3, Harcourt Buildings, Tempie.

White, Join Forbes, 107, King Street, Aberdeen.
᾿ White, Prof. J. W., Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

Whitehead, ΚΕ. R., 33A, Fulham Road, S.W.

Wickham, Rev. E. C., Wellington College, Wokingham.
*Wilde, Oscar, 7216 Street, Chelsea.

Wilkins, Prof. A. S., Zhe Owens College, Manchester.

Willert, P. F., Exeter College, Oxford.

Wills, William, 12, King’s Bench Walk, Temple, E.C.
*Winwood, Rev. H. H., 11, Cavendish Crescent, Bath.
*Wood, J. T., Sctentific Club, 4, Savile Row, W.

Wood, Rev. W. S., Chippenham, Wilts.

Woods, Rev. H. G., Trinity College, Oxford.

Woolner, Thomas, R.A., 29, Welbeck Street, W.

Wren, Walter, 2, Powzs Square, W.

Wright, W. Aldis, Trinity College, Cambridge.

Wroth, Warwick W., British Museum, W.C.

*Young, Rev. E. M., The School, Sherborne.
Yule, Miss Amy, care of Messrs. Grindlay & Co., 55, Parlia-
ment Street, S.W.

The Society for the Promotion of Greek Literature in
Athens.*

* This Society has agreed to contribute £5 5s. annually to the
funds of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies,

XXXII1

LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS TO THE JOURNAL
OF TIELLENIC STUDIES:

The Astor Library, Vew York.

The Royal Museum Library, Berdin.

The Buffalo Young Men’s Library, Buffalo, U.S.A.

The Boston Athenaeum Library, Boston, U.S.A.

The Dartmouth College Library, Hanover, U.S.A.

The Durham Cathedral Library, Durham.

The Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.

The Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British
Museum, W.C.

The Library of King’s College, Camébridge.

The London Library, St. James's Square, S.W.

The St. Louis Mercantile Library, S¢. Louzs, U.S.A.

The Library of University College, London.

The Free Library, Worcester, Mass., U.S.A.

XXX1V

LIST OF JOURNAES, &c., RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE
FOR THE JOURNAL OF “HELLENIC STUDIES:

The Athenaion, A¢hens.
Bursian’s Jahresbericht fiir classische Alterthumswissenschaft.
The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.

The Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique (published by the
French School at Athens).

The Mittheilungen of the German Institute at Athens.

The Archaologische Zeitung, Berlin.

The Revue Archéologique, Paris.

The Numismatic Chronicle.

The Journal of the Smithsonian Institute, Washington, U.S.A.
The Publications of the Evangelical School, Smyrna.

The Annuaire de I’Association pour Encouragement des
Etudes Grecques en France, Parzs.

The Parnassos Philological Journal, Athens.

The Publications of the German Imperial Archaeological
Institute, Rove.

The Journal of the American Archaeological Institute, Boston,
O:S A:

The Publications of the Imperial Archaeological Commission,
St. Petersburg.

The Transactions of the Cambridge Philological Society.
The Journal of Philology.

The Publications of the Russian Imperial Archaeological Society,
St. Petersburg.

XXXV

eae SESSION: OF 1861:

The First General Meeting for the reading of Papers and
for Discussion was held on 7hursday, February 24, when the
chair was taken by the REV. MARK PATTISON, B.D., Member
of Council, Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford.

The HON. SECRETARY read a paper by Mr. Fergusson,
controverting Mr. A. S. Murray’s theory as to the Steps
which gave entrance to the Erechtheum, propounded in Vol. I.
of the ¥ournal of Hellenic Studies (p. 224). In the course of
discussion on the paper, Mr. J. T. Wood, while expressing
general agreement with Mr. Fergusson’s view, remarked that
there were several questions as to the construction and
purpose of the Erechtheum which could only be cleared up
by a thorough excavation of the building. The Society might
perhaps help towards the execution of this most desirable
object. (Fournal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 11. p. 83.)

Mr. E. MYERS read a paper on the ‘ Pentathlon,’ taking up
some special points in Professor Gardner's paper on the
subject in Vol. I. of the Journal. (¥ournal, Vol. 11. p. 217.)

The CHAIRMAN read a paper by the Rev. E. L. Hicks,
on a ‘Greek Inscription at Cambridge,’ published by Boeckh
among the Attic Decrees (C. /. G. 106). Mr. Hicks con-
tended that it must have come from Halikarnassus, and had
reference to the revolution at Troezen in 303 B.C. (¥ournal,

Vol. II. p. 98.)

XXXV1

The Hon. SEC. read a paper by Professor Mahaffy, on the
‘Authenticity of the Olympian Register’ (¥ournal, Vol. II.
p. 164). The writer’s aim was to prove that the first fifty
Olympiads and the primary date, 776 B.c., had been too
readily accepted, and that there was good ground for believing
that Hippias the rhetor constructed, about 390—7o B.c., the
whole history of the feast,—partly from the evidence before him,
partly from the analogy of other feasts. He fixed the com-
mencement of his list, after the manner of the chronologers
of his day, by the supposed date of the mythical founder.
Hence, neither the names nor the dates found in Eusebius’
copy of the register for the first fifty Olympiads are to be

accepted as genuine, unless they are corroborated by other
evidence.

The HON. SEC. read a letter from the Bishop of Lincoln
(F¥ournal, Vol. Il. p. 228), pointing out that in his work on
Greece, published in 1839, there was a passage founded on his
personal observations in 1832, which strikingly anticipated the
recent discovery by M. Karapanos of the true site of Dodona.

The Second General Meeting was held on 7hursday, April 21,

when the chair was taken by PROFESSOR C. T. NEWTON, C.B.,
Vice-President.

The CHAIRMAN read a paper on the ‘Statuette of Athené
Parthenos,’ recently discovered at Athens, and supposed with
good reason to be a rude copy of the chryselephantine statue
of Pheidias (¥ournal, Vol. II. p. 1). Photographs of the
Statuette, presented by Mr. Merlin, British Consul at the
Piraeus, were exhibited to the meeting.

- PROFESSOR GARDNER read a paper by Canon Greenwell,
on ‘Votive Armour and Arms’ (Y¥ournal of Hellenic Studies,
Vol. II. p. 65). A general account of such objects led to
the discussion of the question of the date of the introduction
of iron into Greece, and of the consequent disuse of bronze
for weapons, save of a votive character. Then followed a
full description of a particular bronze spear-head, of quad-
rangular form, and inscribed on three of the four faces of

XXXV11

the blade, which Canon Greenwell believed must have come
from Olympia, from its strong resemblance to others found
there during the recent excavations. An _ illustration of
this spear-head is given on Plate XI. in the atlas which
accompanies the ¥ournal. A discussion followed, in which
the Chairman and Messrs. Pollock, Cust, Geldart, and
Gardner took part.

PROF. GARDNER read a paper on ‘ Boat-Races among the
Greeks’ (Y¥ournal, Vol. II. p. 90), in which he brought forward
evidence, chiefly from the coins of Corcyra, but also from
allusions in the whole range of Greek literature, to show that
such contests existed among the Greeks.

The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the land-locked harbour
of Corfu was specially fitted for boat-racing, and threw out
the suggestion that the famous ‘ Phaselus ille, &c., of Catullus
might possibly be a translation of some Greek inscription
commemorating a galley that had won a race. He referred
also to the bronze prow of a galley found in the Bay of
Actium, and now in the British Museum. Afropos of a
reference made by Stephanus to the establishment at Actium
of a πλοίων ἅμιλλα, the Rector of Lincoln pointed out that
πλοῖον in classic Greek meant not a galley but a merchant
or transport vessel. It was doubted, however, whether the
distinction would have been observed by Stephanus.

The REv. E. M. GELDART read a paper on ‘The Etymology
of the words ξηρὸς, EavOcs, «.7.r.’ Stated in a tabular form,
his argument was as follows :—

1. "Expéer, ἐξέρ[ρ]ευσε as if from ξερεύω = Eepds εἰμι.

/ / ’
1a. "Eppéet,) ἐνέρ[ρ]ευσε 1 » 95 Ρερεύω = νερός εἰμι.
rv - ΄, lal , 3
2. ᾿Εξανθεῖ, ἐξάνθησε "ν΄ €av0d = Eavlos εἰμὶ-
3. "Exvéw, -νεύω, eEévevce ,, ,, Eevevw = Eevos εἰμι.

These derivations are on the analogy of the modern ξάσ-
repos, inferred from ἐξαστέρησε,, aor. 1 of €Eaotepa.*

1 Conjectural forms.

XXXVII1

THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

Took place on Thursday, Fune 16, when PRoF. C. T. NEWTON,
Vice-President, was in the chair. The following Report was
read by the HON. SEC. on behalf of the Council :—

Report on the Progress of the Society from Fanuary 22, 1880,
to F¥une 16, 1881.

It is exactly two years to-day since the Society for the
Promotion of Hellenic Studies was formally inaugurated.
A Provisional Committee then appointed drew up Rules
which were confirmed by a General Meeting on January 22,
1880, on which occasion were elected the present Officers and
Council.

The Council has to-day to report on the progress made
since the meeting on January 22, 1880.

At that date the numbers of the Society were about 270.
Since then 180 new members have been elected, so that the
Society now numbers 450, exclusive of Honorary Members.

At the last Annual Meeting the Council expressed their
intention of carrying out the objects of the Society, as laid
down in Rule I., by the periodical publication of memoirs
and documents. This promise has been fulfilled in the shape
of the Yournal of Hellenic Studies, of which the first volume,
of 314 pages, was published at the end of last year, accom-
panied by an Atlas containing 8 Plates. It is hoped that
such a volume may be published annually, in half-yearly
parts appearing about April and October. The first part
for the present year, much of which has been in type for
some months, was kept back in order to include an important
paper from Dr. Schliemann on his discoveries at Orchomenus.
It will be issued to members as soon as possible. The
editorship of the Journal is in the hands of a Committee,
consisting of Professor Gardner, Professor Hort, Professor
Jebb, and Mr. Bywater.

With a view to periodical meetings of the Society, the
Council has secured at a moderate rent the occasional use

ΧΧΧΙΧ

of the rooms of the Royal Asiatic Society in Albemarle
Street ; and arrangements have been made for four General
Meetings in the year, at which papers may be read and any
important communications be made to the Society. A branch
of the Society has been formed at Cambridge, under the
chairmanship of the Master of Trinity, for the purpose of
promoting in that University the objects set forth in No, I.
of the Society’s Rules. It is hoped that a similar branch
may be formed in Oxford.

Communications have been opened, and exchanges of pub-
lications arranged, with the following societies and institutions:
the Royal Asiatic Society, the Numismatic Society of London,
the French School at Athens, the Imperial German Institute
of Archaeological Correspondence at Athens, the Imperial
German Archaeological Institute at Rome, the Society for
the Encouragement of Greek Studies in France, the Evan-
gelical School at Smyrna, the Parnassos Society at Athens,
the Smithsonian Institute at Washington, and the American
Archaeological Institute; and with the proprietors of the
Athenaion, the Archiologische Zeitung, the Revue Archéologique,
and Bursian’s ¥ahresbericht fiir die classische Alterthumswis-
seuschaft.

The Council have also purchased for the use of members
complete sets of the following foreign journals: the M7tthedl-
ungen of the German Institute at Athens, the Azlletin de
Correspondance Hellinique, the Athenaion, the Philistor, and
the new series of the Revue Archéologique. A few other
books have been presented to the Society.

At the suggestion of M. Gennadius, mutual relations have
been established with the Parnassos Society at Athens, who
have kindly consented to represent the interests of the Society
in Greece, and to give every assistance to members wishing
to travel in the country and bearing introductions from the
Council.

In accordance with the provisions of Rule XXXL, the
Council have nominated fifteen Foreign and four British
Honorary Members. These are: His Majesty the King of
the Hellenes, Professor H. Brunn, Professor Comparetti,

xl

Professor Ernst Curtius, M. Foucart, Professor W. Helbig,
Professor A. Kirchhoff, Dr. H. Kohler, Professor S. A. Ku-
manudes, Professor A. Michaelis, Mons. B. E. C. Miller,
Member of the Institute, M. Rangabe, Professor L. Stephani,
M. Waddington, Member of the Institute, and the Baron
J. de Witte ; Mr. Biliotti, British Consul at Trebizond, Mr:
George Dennis, British Consul at Smyrna, Mr. Merlin, British
Consul at the Piraeus, and Mr. Wood, British Consul at
Patras.

As to the financial position of the Society, the Balance
Sheet now presented shows that, from June, 1879, up to the
present time, the sum of £1,340 35. gd. has been received
in members’ subscriptions, donations, and from libraries
subscribing to the ¥ournxal. The sum of £467 5s. 8d. has
been expended on the Yournal, Printing of Circulars, Station-
ery, Postage, the Hire of Rooms, the Purchase of Books, &c.,
leaving a balance in hand of £872 18s. 1d. Of this £378
consists of Life Subscriptions which it is proposed to fund,
but even so there is a balance of about 4500 for present
expenses, and there are £150 still due in unpaid subscriptions.
It is particularly requested that these arrears may be paid up
as quickly as possible.

On the whole the Council think there is good reason to be
satisfied with the progress made in the past year and a half.
It is most desirable that the Society’s power of work should
be increased by the adhesion of fresh members interested in
its objects, and it is hoped that members will do what they
can to enlist subscribers, The larger the income placed at
their disposal, the better able will the Council be to turn their
attention to other objects indicated in the first of the Society’s
Rules, and to take effective action whenever occasion may
arise,

xli

ἼΘΟΙ ‘ysS1 aun
‘ATAINHSANA ὯΔ SVTONOd
“MOOTIOd> ΜΟΙ ΘΠ

‘yoa1109 aq 0} JI Puy ΡῈ “θαθοπο PUL 5) ΠΟ Ο 5, ΔΊοιοοςς 91} τημα J94S aourjeg aaoqe ay) ροχεάπιου savy 2M

"99S ‘NOH ‘NVTIINOVW “V ADXOAD

t Sliclgy τ: 3 7 ς 5 Ξ : “ ΟΠ] “*

60) ΘΕῚΣ ---
se. τὸ 6 € obf1F
Ι 91 zlg . . . . . . . - aouryeg “ec - =
ee Ὁ 9 ἢ . ἢ . * syooq-anbaya ; Ξ

Ὁ Ὁ ὦ = δ᾽ σι eee Ons Ja

‘yaqutaoacy 0} ounf ‘ArvjaI99G JULIsISSy ae

9z79° : : : - 9582 yoog He

os © * UIIABL SUOSCUI0I,, Jv WOO

pis 7 —:soupuns ‘ ΞΖ
απο ἐς oer Se Ree Sealed © fe
oe ΟΣ ΣΦΙ 3 : - 7991)ς: 9171 ἘΤΠ96}ν ‘suooy jo quay ““ vAS
9 € oz ἢ : - ὍΣ ‘spivo-jsog ‘savmnosig Sunaug ‘ Pa
a~ { -9s : : : . : ‘advjsog pur f12u0yes “ἢ x ἤ
ΟἽ 9 lz - . δ . . δ . . τ syooq ‘ Pe
oS on Ar =: ὃ : * Suryjovg pur zowsno£ yo asvuueg ‘ | o zy zy - - - 5 τ suoydisosqng Aiviqry ““
OO Vit Ὁ ) ; : 3 * O}IIp 10] suonrysnyy ‘‘ 6 τι lea “ : - ΤΊΘΘΙ 1ξ Ae 0} 5ΠΟΠ 0]
8.0 ε: : : ᾿ ἽἸΟΛ ρμμηος Sodeg pur Sunaug Aq pue suonduasqng 98 puv Ajivax Slequey ΟἹ,
» xy . » ς F

ἼΘΟΙ ‘If Avy of ‘6Lg1 ‘aun ‘LNAWALVLS HSVD
‘SHIGNLS DINATIXNH AO NOILONOUd HHL AOH ALHIDOS AHL

ΧΙ

The adoption of the Council’s Report was then moved by
Mr. R. N. Cust, the Honorary Secretary of the Royal Asiatic
Society, who, after expressing his approval of the progress of
the Society as reported on by the Council, stated also his
satisfaction at the Society assembling in the Rooms of the
Royal Asiatic Society.

ΜΕ. PERCIVAL, in seconding the motion, urged strongly
the acquisition of fresh subscribing members in order that
the sphere of the Society’s work might be enlarged.

The Report was adopted unanimously.

The CHAIRMAN, after expressing regret at the unavoidable
absence of the Bishop of Durham, the President of the
Society, read out the names of the Officers and Council.
proposed for the coming year. In accordance with
Rule XX., the following members now retired: The
Dean of Westminster, Professors Henry Smith, Bonamy
Price, Kennedy, and Mahaffy, Messrs. A. J. Balfour, H.
O. Coxe, F. C. Penrose, and Oscar Wilde. In their stead
were nominated: Mr. S. H. Butcher, Professor A. Goodwin,
Rev. E. L. Hicks, Mr. Henry Jackson, Mr. Andrew Lang,
Mr. Peile, Rev. E. S. Roberts, Mr. J. E. Sandys, Mr. Arthur
Sidgwick, and Dr. William Smith, while Professor Mahaffy
was re-elected. The only other change proposed in the
constitution of the Officers and Council was the addition
of the names of Professors W. D. Geddes and R. Y. Tyrrell,
to the list of Vice-Presidents.

The adoption of the Council’s proposal was moved by
Mr. E. Maunde Thompson, Vice-President, seconded by
Mr. W. G. Rutherford, and carried unanimously.

A vote of thanks to the Auditors, Messrs. Douglas Fresh-
field and Frederick Pollock, was moved by Prof. Gardner, who
took the opportunity of saying that satisfactory as, on the
whole, the progress of the Society had so far been, two
things were still urgently needed, (1) an increase of funds
to enable the Society to carry out the further objects laid
down in its Rules, and (2) constant attendance and attention
on the part of Members of Council. In course of time no

xliil

doubt fresh openings for activity in the examination of
ancient sites, &c., would occur, and it might be hoped
that eventually the Society would be in a position to aid
all those who wish to study Hellenic Antiquities, whether
at home or abroad.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Percival and carried
unanimously.

The CHAIRMAN then stated that in the absence of the
President no address was forthcoming on the progress of
Hellenic Studies during the past year, such as it was hoped
might be produced at subsequent annual meetings, but
Professor Gardner would read parts of Dr. Schliemann’s
paper on ‘Orchomenus,’ which had been alluded to in the
Report as sufficient justification for the delay of the new
number of the Journal. (¥vurna/, Vol. 11. p. 122.)

Parts of the paper having been read, a discussion followed,
in which Mr. Percival, Professor Gardner, and the Chairman
took part. The Chairman said that the size of the blocks
in the building described, as well as the style of ornamen-
tation, pointed to a remote antiquity. It must be determined
also what this so-called Treasury is, whether a tomb or a
temple ; specimens of pottery, too, were needed as evidence
of age.

Miss AMELIA B. EDWARDS exhibited an archaic gold
earring said to have been found on the Acropolis at Athens.
(Fournal, Vol. 11. p. 324.)

A vote of thanks to the Chairman, proposed by Rev. W.
Wayte, and seconded by Professor Constantinides, closed the
proceedings.

The Last General Meeting was held on 7hursday, October 20,
the REV. H. F. TOZER, Vice-President, in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN read a paper on ‘ Byzantine Satire’
(Fournal, Vol. 11. p. 233), taking as illustrations two important
and typical pieces, The Sufferings of Timarion and The
Sojourn of Mazaris in Hades. After an account of the

xliv

special circumstances which gave rise to this form of litera-
ture, the writer gave a full analysis, with extracts, of both
pieces, showing their resemblance to Lucian's Dialogues of
the Dead. After a discussion, in which Messrs. Gennadius,
Gardner, and Myers took part,

Mr. CECIL SMITH read a paper on certain Greek Vases
which seemed to throw light on the costume of the Chorus
in the Szrds of Aristophanes (Yourna/, Vol. Il. p. 309).
On them were depicted comic figures apparently representing
men dressed up as birds, with beaks, wings, crests, &c.
The vase which suggested the inquiry is in the British
Museum, and probably belongs to the middle of the fifth
century B.C.

Mr. WATKISS LLOYD’s paper on the ‘ Battle of Marathon’
(Ffournal, Vol. II. p. 380) was taken as read in the unavoid-—
able absence of the author.

The following dates have been fixed for the General
Meetings in 1882, to be held at 22, Albemarle Street, at
4.30 on each day.

Thursday, February 14,

Thursday, April 20,
Thursday, June 15. (Annual.)
Thursday, October 19,

DONATIONS.
The following donations towards the Society’s objects
have been received during 1881, from

Mr. J. P. Misto, of Smyrna, £38 9s.
Mr. 5. Hazzopulo, of Manchester, £5.

STATUETTE OF ATHENE PARTHENOS.

THE recent discovery of a copy in marble of the chrysele-
phantine statue of Athené Parthenos, by Pheidias, has already
led to the publication of several memoirs,! the most recent of
which by Michaelis has anticipated much that I bad intended
to say here. There are, however, certain points which seem to
me still open to discussion. The statuette, as I have already
stated in the Academy, is 1:05 metre, or rather more than 3
feet 4 inches high, inclusive of the base, and 93 centimeters
without it. It represents the goddess armed with a helmet
and aegis; her left hand rests on her shield set edgeways,
her right hand advanced sustains a figure of Victory, her left
leg is slightly bent, so that the weight of the body rests on
the right leg. The goddess is clad in a talaric chiton, without
sleeves, over which is an upper fold or garment falling in rich
pteryges down the right side.

On her arms, bare to the shoulders, are armlets, on her neck
a necklace of beads; her helmet, which fits close to the head
and covers the nape of the neck, is surmounted by a tall triple
crest, below which is a Sphinx flanked on either side by a
winged horse.? The helmet has cheek-pieces, paragnathides,

1 Michaelis, Zine newe Copie der
Parthenos des Phidias; Kabbadias,
᾿Αθηνᾶ, ἣ παρὰ τὸ Βαρβάκειον εὑρεθεῖσα,
Athens, 1881; A. Hauvette-Besnault,
Staiue @ Athéné in Bulletin de Corres.
pondance Hellénique, Jan, 1881, pp.
54—68; Lange in MWittheil. d. deutsch.
Inst. in Athen, 1880, pp. 370-79 ; also

H. S.— VOL. II.

my remarks, Academy, Feb. 12, 1881.

5 Hauvette-Besnault, following Pau-
sanias, calls these Gryphons, but Lange
says positively that they are winged
horses, and this is confirmed by the
evidence of the silver tetradrachms of
Heraklea, probably of Ionia.

B

2 STATUETTE OF ATHENE PARTHENOS.

turned back on hinges. A Gorgon’s head ornaments the
centre of the aegis and also the centre of the shield. Within
the concave of the shield the serpent which Pausanias supposed
to be Erichthonios is coiled; the Niké, who holds out some
object in both hands, is half turned towards the goddess.!

The statuette is of Pentelic marble, and on its discovery
shewed here and there traces of gilding. The right arm is
supported by a pillar, the base on which the figure stands 15
plain.

On comparing the statuette with the description in Pausanias
and in Pliny? we see a very satisfactory coincidence in most of
the details. But the following features in the original design are
wanting: the spear in the left hand of the goddess; the battle
of Greeks and Amazons on the outside, and the Gigantomachia
on the inside of he. shield; the relief on the base representing
the Birth of Pandora; the battles of Lapiths and Centaurs on
the soles of the sandals.

I have already pointed out in the Academy that several of
these missing details may be supplied by comparing the rude
little marble figure, discovered at Athens by Charles Lenormant
many years ago, with the fragment of shield formerly belonging to
Lord Strangford, and now in the British Museum. On the base of
the Lenormant statuette, the Birth of Pandora 1s indicated by
a series of rudely executed figures, and on the outside of the
Strangford shield the Amazonomachia is very clearly represented.
For the spear in the left hand of Athené we must look to
the smaller representations of the chryselephantine statue on
Athenian coins and reliefs (see Michaelis, Parthenon, Pl. XYV.).

The column below the right hand of the goddess, which we
find associated with the newly-discovered statue, is an unwelcome
addition to the composition which I feel very reluctant to re-
cognize as a feature in the original design of Pheidias; such
an adjunct seems a very clumsy expedient and unworthy of his
genius. It is true that such a support to the arm of the goddess
is found on an Athenian relief published by Botticher (see

1 According to M. Hauvette-Bes- but see Kohler, in the Mitthetlungen
nault it is probable that the object d. deutsch. Arch. Inst. in Athen, 1880.
held in the hands of the Victory was pp. 95-96.
asortof wreath. Michaelis (Parthenon, 2 See these passages, Michaelis, Par-

p. 275, and p. 358 of his recent Me- thenon, pp. 266-270; and Overbeck,
moir) regards it as certainly a sash; Schriftquellen.

᾿

ἢ ""
ΠΙ HH ν᾽
ΠῚ ᾿ |
1}: Ι
\
AML iis
ἡ |
Bi), Ι 1 ἢ hy
Ι a | LUAU
" )
HA
! ᾽
i
Ϊ
ἢ]:

4 STATUETTE OF ATHENE PARTHENOS.

Michaelis, Pl. xv., fig. 7), but on the other reliefs, and on
coins which represent the Athené Parthenos, the arm is left
free in mid-air.

Michaelis, in his recent memoir, argues that such a support
may have been necessary on account of the great weight of the
Victory, which is calculated to have been 4 cubits, or about 6 feet
high, and which he assumes to have been, like the goddess, of
gold and ivory. But Iam not aware that any ancient author
tells us of what material the Victory was formed, and in the
absence of any evidence to the contrary I think we are
justified in assuming that this figure was cast either in gold, or
in some other metal gilt. This material would, I conceive, be
much lighter than chryselephantine work with its inner core
of wood.

Michaelis says, the weight to be sustained would have re-
quired a structure in iron such as would now be used. But
why should not the ancients, who were most skilful metallurgists,
have had within the chryselephantine arm of the goddess a bar
of copper or wrought iron, bent at the elbow, and affording a
support quite independent of the outer casing of wood on which
the ivory was attached? Such a bar would be what in the
language of modern architecture is called a cantilever, and its
upper extremity could have been securely attached to the imner
frame or skeleton of the statue.

The position of the left hand resting on the shield corresponds
with that of the Lenormant statuette, and if the action of the
fingers is faithfully rendered, it is not clear how the spear
could have been held in this hand. It may be that the spear
was held between the thumb and first finger, while the other
fingers rested on the edge of the shield. This would be more in
accordance with the statement of Ampelius (Lib. Mem. 8, δ)
in describing the original, cujus ad sinistram elipeus appositus
quem digito tangit. He also states that the spear was made
of reed, de gramine. This was probably gilt. On the late
silver tetradrachms of Athens, on the copper coins of Amisus
in Pontus, on the celebrated Aspasios gem in the Vienna cabinet,
and on other gems in the British Museum, and elsewhere, the
front of the helmet is ornamented with a row of projecting
horses’ heads. Of these there is no trace in the newly-discovered
statuette, and Michaelis (Parthenon, p. 272) appears to reject

STATUETTE OF ATHENE PARTHENOS. 5

this ornament as if it interfered with the simplicity of the
original design. Yet it is difficult to believe that it was not part
of the decoration of the helmet at the date when the coins on
which it appears were struck, and we have no evidence that any
later addition was made to the design of Pheidias.

From p. 8 of the memoir by Mr. Kabbadias, already referred
to, it appears that the Pentelic marble of this statuette was
highly polished in the nude parts of the figure. This treat-
ment is characteristic of the period of the Antonines to which
I should be disposed to refer this copy, if it is not even later.’
Mr. Kabbadias further notes the following traces of colour: the
eyelids of the goddess and the white of her eyes have been
painted red, the circle of the iris marked by a red line, the
pupil blue. The hair he describes as falling down the back in
a thick club of tresses symmetrically arranged after the archaic
manner. Traces of yellow colour are visible on the tresses
fallmg over the aegis. The same colour is visible on the little
curls on the temples. The eyebrows of the Gorgon’s head on
the aegis are painted red, the sphinx on the helmet has traces
of yellow colour in the hair, and of red and blue in the eyes; the
crest is red; the serpent has traces of yellow all over its body,
the Gorgon’s head on the shield has traces of red about the
wings and serpents.

The manifest incapacity of the Roman sculptor to transmit
in his mechanical copy the essential qualities of the original
masterpiece, makes it very difficult to recognize any trace of
the style of Pheidias in the newly-discovered statuette; in
which the original breadth and simplicity of treatment have
degenerated into ignoble baldness and emptiness, and the
majestic calm of the countenance has been translated into a
wooden and meaningless mask.

We have, however, gained much from this discovery, which
tells us not only the general features of the design, but enables
us to judge more exactly what were the relative proportions of
gold and ivory surfaces in the figure of the goddess. It is
interesting to note how nearly the restoration given by Flaxman
in his lectures on sculpture approximates to the truth. The
correspondence between the height of the statuette with its

1 See the bust of Antoninus Pius, Guide to Graeco-Roman Sculptures,
found at Cyrene, inthe British Museum. No, 24.

6 STATUETTE OF ATHENE PARTHENOS.

base, 39 inches, with the 12 metres = 39 feet, which Michaelis
(Parthenon, p. 272) calculates to have been the probable height
of the original. inclusive of its base, suggests the idea, that the
Roman copy was reduced on the scale of an inch to a foot. I
throw out this suggestion for further examination, observing
obiter, that Michaelis in his recent memoir, p. 356, thinks that
the proportion of height which the base in the Lenormant
statuette bears to the figure, viz., a sixth, is more likely to be
right than in the newly-discovered copy. It will be interesting
if further exploration of the site where this statuette was found,
should confirm the suggestion that in the Roman period a
private house stood here, and that the newly-discovered
statuette had been dedicated in a sacrarium (see SchOmann,
Griechische Alterthiimer, 11. pp. 525-6).!

C. T. Nrewron.

' Since this paper was printed have with the statuette here described. The
seen, in the Museum at Turin, a bronze shield, spear, and Victory are wanting,
figure of Athene about two feet high, but these, being of bronze, may have
which corresponds in attire, in general perished, This figure was found in
pose, and in the action of both hands, Piedmont.

~]

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

Dr. SCHLIEMANN has proved that Hissarlik was a seat of
human hab.tation from a prehistoric age. This has not been
proved for any other place which could claim to be the site of
Homeric Troy. Assuming that ‘the tale of Troy’ is founded
on a central fact—i.e., that a very old town, placed as the Iliad
roughly indicates, was once besieged and taken—the claim of
Hissarlik to be the site of that town is now both definite and
unique. Thus far, Dr. Schlhemann’s argument is unanswerable.
It is not my purpose to discuss here the further questions which
arise as to the relation of his discoveries to places or objects
described in the Ziad. The subject of which I would speak
is historical rather than strictly archeological, yet one which,
within certain limits, has a distinct bearing on Dr. Schliemann’s
results.

What was the belief of the ancient Greeks as to the site of
Homeric Troy? And, in particular, how did they generally
regard the claim of the Greek Ilium (at Hissarlik) to be
considered as occupying the Homeric site ?

The view of these questions taken in Troy and 7105
cannot, I think, be altogether reconciled with the evidence of
ancient literature. Dr. Schliemann has given so many proofs of
his desire for a full and candid examination of everything which
relates to Troy, that no further apology is needed for indicating
the respects in which I am unable to agree with his treatment
of this topic. His general conclusions, it may be said at once,
are not, in my opinion, affected thereby. The difference, as will
be seen, is rather in the nature of the significance which the
ancient tradition assumes relatively to his discoveries.

Dr. Schliemann, it will be remembered, identifies Homeric

8 HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

Tlios with certain ruined buildings of slightly baked bricks,
which exhibit the action of intense heat. It is inferred that the
town to which they belonged had been destroyed by fire, which
the wind drove from $.W. to N.E., thus sparing the §.E. corner.
The inhabitants of the Greek Ilium alleged that the Trojan
Ilium had not been completely destroyed when the Achaeans
took it, and had never ceased to be inhabited. Dr. Schliemann
is disposed to accept this view. ‘The form of the strata of the
burnt débris indicates that after the great conflagration, the
inhabitants continued to go in and out at the same place as
before’ (p. 519). At the same time he thinks it more probable
that the city which succeeded to the burnt city was inhabited
by a different people (p. 520). The value of the local tradition
at the Greek Ilium must be estimated with reference to other
statements for which it is responsible. The Greek Ilians could
point, on their acropolis, to the very altar of Zeus Herkeios at
which Priam had been slain: they could show the panoplies
of Trojan heroes, the lyre of Paris, and the stone on which
Palamedes had tauglft the Greeks to play at dice. As Dr.
Schliemann well observes: ‘They were so totally ignorant of
archeology that they took it as an undoubted fact that the
Trojans had walked on the very same surface of the soil as
themselves, and that the buildings they showed were all that
remained of the ancient city’ (p. 211). The remains of the
Greek Ilium cease, according to Dr. Schliemann, at about six
feet below the surface; and the remains of three other pre-
historic settlements then intervene before we reach the remains
of the burnt city at a depth of 22—33 feet.

The tradition of the Greek Ilians as to the unbroken
habitation of the Trojan site cannot, then, have rested on the
evidence of the brick-built remains which the fire had spared.
Obviously this legend was nothing more than a device of local
guides, to explain what would otherwise have been puzzling
indeed—how it was that they could still show the Trojan altar
of Zeus Herkeios, &c. In the belief of the ancient world, Trojan
Ilium had ceased to be inhabited when it was sacked by the
Achaeans, and its site had ever afterwards remained desolate.
This was not an accidental detail of the ancient tradition, but a

1 Arrian 1.11; Plutarch, Alex. 15; Polemon Mliensis in Miller, Frag. Hist. τι. 124.

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM. 9

capital and essential feature. If so much of the Trojan [lum
had been spared that the old inhabitants could continue to
occupy it, the ten years’ siege would, in the feeling of the old
world, have ended with an abject anti-climax. The gods who
had fought for the Achaeans would have been robbed of their
due triumph over the gods who had fought for the Trojans.
The victory of Achaean over Trojan would have been stripped
of that signal and monumental significance which made it
thenceforth for ever an iiteffaedabla: landmark in the heroic
past of Greece, the trophy of a tremendous wrestling-bout
in which Asia had been thrown by Europe, worthy to be
avenged—as in the conception of Herodotus it was—by an
invasion in which the whole forces of the Great King should
be hurled against the sons of Agamemnon and Achilles. The
standard of modern chivalry must not be applied to the religious
ruthlessness of Homeric war: the J/iad itself describes the fate
‘of folk whose town is taken’; how swords slay the men, fire
devours the town, strangers lead away the children and the
deep-girded women.! When Aeschylus, Euripides, Virgil,
Horace, Lucan, portray the destruction of Troy almost as Hebrew
prophecy pictures the desolation of Tyre, they are not using
a poetical freedom, but expressing the fixed belief of antiquity.
They are merely so many witnesses of a tradition which, how-
ever it might fluctuate in details, was on this point inflexible.
Their position was analogous to that of a poet who should
dramatise a great episode from the Historical Books of the
Old Testament. If the subject of such a dramatist were the
capture of Jericho by the Israelites, he might perhaps dare to
modify or invent minor circumstances; but he could not tamper
with the catastrophe. He could not depart from the record
that, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and
shouted with a great shout, the wall fell down flat; that the
conquerors utterly destroyed all that was in the city with the
edge of the sword; that they burnt the city with fire, and all
that was therein, save only the silver and the gold and the
vessels of brass and of iron. Not much acceptance could be ex-
pected for a version which represented the household of Rahab
as merely part of a Canaanite residuum which, after the capture,

1 71, 1x. 593, where it should be ob- usual, the normal consequences of
Served that πέλει... ἅλῴη describe the capture by storm.

0 HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

continued to inhabit a quarter of the town that had escaped the
conflagration.

The point on which I here insist is that the notion of Homeric
Thum having continued to be inhabited, without any break in
consequence of its capture by the Achaeans, is utterly at
variance with the fundamental idea and the whole spirit of the
tradition, and is not simply a divergence from it in a matter
of detail. This will come out still more clearly on reference
to some of the passages in which the destruction of Troy is
incidentally noticed by prose-writers.

Strabo says!:—‘ No trace of the ancient city (of Ilium) remains.
This is natural; the towns of the neighbourhood were sacked,
indeed, but not utterly destroyed, whereas Troy was razed to its
foundations ; and all its stones were then removed for the purpose
of repairing the other towns. Thus it is stated (φασί) that Arch-
aeanax of Mitylene fortified Sigeum with stones brought thence.’

As expressions similar to φασί occur more than once in
Strabo’s notices of Ilium, it is well to bear in mind what they
imply. In discussing the date of the Θηρίκλειοι κύλικες,
Bentley quoted Athenaeus, XI. p. 470 F, κατασκευάσαι δὲ
λέγεται THY κύλικα ταύτην Θηρικλῆς,. . . γεγονὼς τοῖς
χρόνοις κατὰ τὸν κωμικὸν Ἀριστοφάνη. His critics ob-
jected:—‘ The author says, λέγεται, “is said, is reported ἢ;
which is an expression of mistrust, and that he was not satisfied
of the truth of the report.’ Bentley answered that λέγεται and
the like phrases are used when a statement is found in several
writers, to avoid enumerating them by name ; when there is only
one authority, he is usually named. Thus Diogenes Laertius has :
‘It is said that, when Pythagoras bared his thigh, it was seen to
be gold”? The phrase indicates, not a doubt felt by Laertius,

VXILL $38; οὐδὲν δ᾽ ἴχνος σώζεται τῆς
ἀρχαίας πόλεως. εἰκότως᾽ ἅτε γὰρ ἐκπεπ-
ορθημένων τῶν κύκλῳ πόλεων, οὐ τελέως
δὲ κατεσπασμένων, ταύτη“ δ᾽ ἐκ βάθ-
ρων ἀνατετραμμένη»", οἱ λίθοι πάντες
εἰς τὴν ἐκείνων ἀνάληψιν μετηνέχθησαν.
᾿Αρχαιάνακτα γοῦν φασι τὸν Μιτυληναῖον
ἐκ τῶν ἐκεῖθεν λίθων τὸ Σίγειον τειχίσαι.

“ This is Bentley’s illustration, and
(quoting perhaps from memory) he
gives the phrase of Laertius as λέγεται.
It is, in fact, Adyos, Pythag. § 11;

λόγος δέ ποτ' αὐτοῦ παραγυμνωθέντος
τὸν μηρὸν ὀφθῆναι χρυσοῦν. In this
context, however, that does not affect
his argument, for the statement is in
close dependence on a preceding one,
introduced by λέγεται : καὶ γὰρ καὶ
σεμνοπρεπέστατος λέγεται γενέσθαι καὶ
οἱ μαθηταὶ δόξαν εἶχον περὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς
εἴη ᾿Απόλλων ἐξ Ὑπερβορέων ἀφιγμένος.
And presently Timaeus is named in
reference to a particular detail which he
alone (it would seem) recorded (7d. § 11).

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM. 11

but the occurrence of the same story in several other writers,
as Apollonius, Plutarch, Lucian, Aelian, Porphyry, lamblichus,
Ammianus. Similarly, when Strabo says φασί, we may be sure
that he had in view several authorities. And presently he
actually mentions two of the writers who had noticed the
tradition of Sigeum being fortified with stones brought from
the site of Ihum, though we are not told whether either of
them mentioned Archaeanax. The historian Timaeus (cire. 260
B.C.) attributed that work to Periander of Corinth. Demetrius
of Scepsis had challenged the statement, saying that the
fortifications had been erected by the Mityleneans, but not
with stones from Ilium.! The source of the error made by
Timaeus in regard to Periander is manifest; Periander had
been the arbitrator to whom the Athenians and Mityleneans
ultimately agreed to refer their dispute about Sigeum?; and
Timaeus had confused him with Archaeanax or some other
ally who had actively befriended the Mityleneans in the
previous struggle. The date of this contest was about
620 B.C.

It appears, then, that im an ancient tradition, followed by
Timaeus and by those writers who spoke of Archaeanax, Homer’s
Troy was conceived as having been, at that time, a deserted site,
marked by some mixed remains or scattered stones, from which
material could be obtained for building in the neighbourhood.
In another place Strabo’s testimony is yet more explicit. After
arguing that the alleged identity of the Greek with the Homeric
Tlum may be refuted from Homer himself, he adds ; ὁμολογοῦσι
δὲ Kal οἱ νεώτεροι TOV ἀφανισμὸν τῆς πόλεως, ὧν ἔστι Kal
Λυκοῦργος ὁ ῥήτωρ, ‘later (1.6. post-Homerie) writers, too, admit
the effacement of the (Homeric) city ; among whom is the orator
Lycurgus’ (to whose evidence we shall come presently). And
further: εἰκάζουσι δὲ τοὺς ὕστερον ἀνακτίσαι διανοουμένους
οἰωνίσασθαι τὸν τόπον ἐκεῖνον, εἴτε διὰ τὰς συμφορὰς εἴτε καὶ
καταρασαμένου τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος κατὰ παλαιὸν ἔθος : ‘It is
conjectured that the men of a later time, when they thought of
making a new settlement, shunned that spot (the site of Homeric
Troy) as ill-omened,—either because of its disasters, or because

1 Strabo x11. ὃ 39. terms the arbitration a δίκη, over

° Herod. v. 95. Diog. Laertius, which Periander presided (1. rv. 74).
quoting the Χρονικά of Apollodorus,

12 HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

Agamemnon cursed it, after an ancient custom ’—as Croesus,
when he took Sidene, the refuge of Glaucias, was said to have
denounced a curse against tose who should build again on that
spot. What was said above of φασίν applies to εἰκάζουσι
here.

We will next turn to Pausanias. In Phocis there was an
ancient town called Ledon, which at this time (cire. 160 A.D.)
had long been deserted. A small village, however, of some
seventy inhabitants, existed on the banks of the Cephisus, about
five miles above ‘the ruins of the ancient Ledon’ (Λέδοντος
τῆς ἀρχαίας τὰ ἐρείπια), and still called itself by the name of
Ledon. Here is an exact and most curious parallel to the case
of the "IAvéwv κώμη, if (as I hold Dr. Schliemann to have
proved) its site at Akshi-Kioi has not any such claim to be the
site of Homeric Troy as can be advanced for Hissarlik. The
analogy may perhaps have been present to the mind of Pau-
sanias, when he added the following comment on the fate of
Ledon :—‘ Irreparable disaster has befallen other cities also
through the guilt of their own citizens. Thus Ilium was
plunged in utter destruction through the outrage of Paris on
Menelaus; Miletus, through the readiness of Histiaeus to obey
his desires,’ &c.2 The words és τελέαν ἀπώλειαν ὠὦλισθον, with
reference to Troy, cannot be explained as being, in the sense of
Pausanias, merely a rhetorical hyperbole for ‘severe disaster’ :
they would, in this connection, have no point, unless the fate
of Troy had been, in his conception, like the fate of Ledon ;
that is, unless Troy had been made, and had remained,
desolate.

But, it may be said, Pausanias and Strabo are late writers ;
Timaeus, even if his authority could be very highly rated,
scarcely carries us back to the close of the ‘classical’ age.
Apart from the poets, is there any proof of a distinct belief as
to the fate of Homeric Troy existing at an earlier period among
men who had access to the most authentic and copious sources
of early Greek tradition, and whose attitude towards such
tradition was likely to be one, not of passive credence,

1 Strabo ΧΠῚ, 88 41, 42. δὲ ἀπώλειαν ὥλισθον Ἴλιον μὲν διὰ τὴν

2 Pausan. x. 33 ὃ 2: κακῶν δὲ ἐς Μενέλαον ὕβριν τοῦ ᾿Αλεξάνδρου,
ἀπέλαυσαν μὲν ἀνιάτων καὶ ἄλλαι πόλεις Μιλήσιοι δὲ διὰ τὸ ἐς τὰς ἐπιθυμίας
δι’. ἀδικίαν ἐπιχωρίων ἀνδρῶν, ἐς τελέαν Ἑστιαίου πρόχειρον, κ.τ.λ.

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM., 13

such as obtains among the multitude, but of intelligent
criticism ?

When the origin of government is being discussed between
Plato’s Cleinias and the Athenian stranger, the latter suggests
a superior limit of historical retrospect. That there has been a
progress, is certain. It'is manifest that, for thousands of years,
the arts were unknown. Nay, we can be more definite. We
may affirm that not more than a thousand, or two thousand.
years have elapsed since Daedalus first made images to live and
breathe, since Palamedes invented resources of utility or pas-
time, since Amphion discovered the lyre, since poetry and
music were developed by Orpheus, Marsyas, and Olympus.
Let us take, he says, a rapid survey of the successive forms
which political civilisation has assumed from the earliest point
at which a view can be obtained. Such a point is afforded, he
continues, by the Deluge. The subsidence of the waters re-
vealed an illimitable desert. The organisation of society had
to recommence from its first elements. The arts had perished
in the universal shipwreck; and it would be necessary that many
generations should elapse before they could revive with the
slow growth of the human race. War and faction had expired,
—for the time ; legislation had not yet been born anew. But,
meanwhile, there must already have been that form of govern-
ment in which each man is lord of his own house. Sucha
dvvacreta—not unknown, says the Athenian, in our own day
among Greeks and barbarians—is ascribed by Homer to the
Cyclopes. They ‘dwell in hollow rocks on the crests of the
high mountains.’ ‘They have neither gatherings for council
nor oracles of law’: ‘each one utters the law to his children
and his wives, and they reck not one of another.’! The second
stage was when primitive men, descending from their fastnesses,
formed larger settlements at the foot of the hills, raised en-
closures of loose walls to keep off wild beasts, and began to
engage in husbandry. This second phase, again, is mirrored by
Homer, when he says that the town of Dardania was founded
by Dardanus at a time when his subjects ‘still dwelt on the
skirts of many-fountained Ida.’ The third stage is marked by
the same passage. ‘Sacred Ilios (the city of Ilus, which

Od. τα. 118.

14 HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM

succeeded to that of Dardanus), had not yet been founded in
the plain.’! The site of Ilium, says Plato’s Athenian, was in ὦ
large and fair plain, on a hill of no great height, watered by
several rivers that descend from Ida.?

I may remark in passing that, if Plato had wished to indicate
Hissarhk as distinguished from Bunarbashi, he could scarcely
have described it better; and it is somewhat surprising that no
advocate of Dr. Schliemann’s views has (so far as I know) quoted
this comment of Plato on the simple ἐν πεδίῳ of the Iliad.

Thus the Homeric Ilios represents, for Plato, a third degree
of progress,—a maturer, a more properly political, form of
monarchy, as distinguished (1) from the ‘aristocracy, or perhaps
monarchy’ of -such a city as Dardania—which he conceives as
little more thah a mechanical aggregate of separate house
δυναστεῖαι: (2) from the primitive house δυναστεῖαι of the
‘Cyclopes’ im the Odyssey. Now, if there had been any record
of a stage in the political history of Ilios subsequent to the
Achaean siege, this might naturally have been noticed. But
the Athenian proceeds: ‘The Achaeans remained some ten
years, and made Troy desolate. > If the historical development
of government is to be traced further, we must, he says, change

Sih 38% GAG A
κτίσσε δὲ Aapdavinvy' ἐπεὶ οὕπω
Ἴλιος ἱρή
ἐν πεδίῳ πεπόλιστο, πόλις μερόπων
ἀνθρώπων,
ἀλλ᾽ ἔθ᾽ ὑπωρείας ᾧκεον πολυπίδακος
“ldns.
Strabo (with Demetrius of Scepsis)
placed the site of Troy at the ᾿Ιλιέων
κώμη (Akshi-Kioi), which is some three
or four miles nearer Ida than Hissarlik,
and does not so obviously answer to
ἐν πεδίῳ as distinguished from the
ὑπωρεῖαι. He remarks, accordingly, that
the σῆμα Ἴλου was probably erected in
the middle of the Trojan plain to com-
memorate the boldness of [lus in first
taking such a site for a town; but
that, in point of fact, Ilus had not
been so very courageous after all—ovd’
οὗτος δὲ τελέως eOappnoev—but had
shown a lingering tendency to cling
to the skirts of the hills. This is

certainly a good point in favour of
Hissarlik ; and we can see that Strabo
felt it (Χιπι. ὃ 25).

2 Plato, Laws 682 B.: κατῳκίσθη δή,
φαμέν, ἐκ τῶν ὑψηλῶν eis μέγα τε καὶ
καλὸν πεδίον ἜΙλιον, ἐπὶ λόφον τινὰ οὐχ
ὑψηλόν καὶ ἔχοντα ποταμοὺς πολλοὺς
ἄνωθεν ἐκ τῆς Ἴδης ὡρμημένους.

8.1.0. 682 D.: δέκα δ᾽ ἔτη που μεί-
ναντες ᾿Αχαιοὶ τὴν Τροίαν ἀνάστατον
ἐποίησα. Cp. 683 A. ἐθεασάμεθα
πρώτην τε (the primitive δυναστεία) καὶ
δευτέραν (Dardania) καὶ τρίτην πόλιν
(Troy), ἀλλήλων, ὡς οἰόμεθα, ταῖς κατοι-
κίσεσιν ἐχομένας ἐν χρόνου τινὸς μήκεσιν
ἀπλέτοις (‘succeeding each other, in
order of foundation, as we believe, at
vast, though indeterminate, intervals’).
νῦν δὲ δὴ τετάρτη Tis ἡμῖν αὕτη πόλις
(Sparta). This serves to bring out the
idea of the passage—that the capture
of Troy closes a chapter.

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM. 15

the scene, and trace it im the history of Sparta. Clearly Plato
knew, or accepted, no tradition other than that of Greece at
large—that the story of Homeric Troy was closed when the
captors made it ‘desolate.’

The term: ἀνάστατος, which is employed here and with which
we shall presently meet again in the same connection, has a
definite and forcible import. In its primary sense, ‘caused
to rise up,’ it is applied to a displaced population, as Isocr.
Paneyy’. § 108, τοὺς ὁμόρους ἀναστάτους ποιήσαντες. When
said figuratively of a city, it denotes not merely the destruction
of buildings, but tlie expulsion of the inhabitants,—//e cessation,
final or for a period, of political evistence on that spot. Thus it
is applied to the condition of Athens when deserted by its in-
habitants and occupied by the destroying host of Xerxes (Isocr.
Panegy?. ὃ 98, and again Archid. § 43); to the destruction of
Thespiae and Plataea and the expulsion of their inhabitants
by the Thebans (ib. ὃ 27); to the complete breaking up of
Mantineia by Agesipolis in 383 B.c., when the population was
distributed into villages (Panegy7. ὃ 126),—an act which the
same writer elsewhere expresses by the words Μαντινέας δὲ
διῴκισαν (De Pace, § 100), as Xenophon says (Hellen. v. 2, 7)
διῳκίσθη ἡ Μαντίνεια. And he describes by the same emphatic
word the utter overthrow of Troy: the avengers of Menelaus
‘did not desist from war until they had made the city of the
offender desolite.’ ἢ

Enough has been adduced, I think, to prove that in the
settled Greek belief of at least six centuries—from the time of
Plato to that of Pausanias—Homeric Troy had been utterly
destroyed, and had ceased to be inhabited. That the capture
had not interrupted the occupation of the site, but had merely
diminished the number of inhabitants—-such a paradox takes
away the breath of life from the legend, and is also in direct
opposition to everything that is probable, on historical grounds,
as to the character of such an event in such an age.

Before quitting this topic, however, I would invite attention
to one more passage, in some respects the most remarkable of

1 Panegyr. § 18). καὶ τοὺς μὲν περὶ παύσασθαι πολεμοῦντας πρὶν τὴν πόλιν
τὰ Τρωϊκὰ γενομένους μιᾶς γυναικὸςὁὨ ἀνάστατον ἐποίησαν τοῦ τολμήσαντος
ἁρπασθείσης οὕτως ἅπαντας συνοργισθῆ- ἐξαμαρτεῖν.
ναι τοῖς ἀδικηθεῖσιν ὥστε μὴ πρότερον

16 HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

all, if regard is had to the qualities of the speaker, and to the
known circumstances of the time at which he spoke. The
Athenian orator Lycurgus is impeaching a citizen named
Leocrates, who. in 338 B.c. had fled from Athens on the day
which brought the terrible tidings of Philip’s victory at
Chaeroneia. The form of the accusation was an indictment
for treason (εἰσαγγελία προδοσίας), and Lycurgus anticipates
the objection that the flight of Leocrates was not ‘ treason’ in
the ordinary acceptation of the term. Leocrates had done
nothing to put the enemy in possession of arsenal, or camp, or
city-gate. Nay, replies Lycurgus, but such an act as his is the
gravest betrayal of all: so far as it goes, it tends not merely to
enslave the city, but to render it uninhabited (ἀοίκητον). To be
deserted by its inhabitants—this is, for a city, what death is to
the human body: πόλεώς ἐστι θάνατος ἀνάστατον γενέσθαι.
‘And here,’ he says, ‘is the best proof. ΟἿΣ city was enslaved
of old by the tyrants, and later by the Thirty, when its walls
were demolished by the Lacedaemonians; yet, after both those
ordeals, we were set free, and were found worthy to watch over
the prosperity of Greece. But not so has it been with any city
that has ever been made desolate (ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὅσαι πώποτ᾽
ἀνάστατοι γεγόνασι). Thus—to take an instance somewhat
remote, indeed, from our own day—who has not heard of Troy,
how it had become the greatest city of its time, the mistress
of Asia, and how, since the day when it was demolished once for
all by the Greeks, it has been left uninhabited through the ages?
And who does not know that five hundred years elapsed before
a population—none of the choicest—could again be assembled

within the walls of Messene?’?!

1 Tn Leoeratem, §§ 61 f. τεκμήριν Ἑλλήνων κατεσκαφη, τὸν αἰῶνα ἀοίκητός
δὲ μέγιστον' ἡμῶν yap ἡ πόλις τὸ μὲν ἐστι; τοῦτο δὲ Μεσσήνην πεντακοσίοις
παλαιὸν ὑπὸ τῶν τυράννων ἐδουλώθη, τὸ ἔτεσιν ὕστερον ἐκ τῶν τυχόντων ἀνθρώ-
δ᾽ ὕστερον ὑπὸ τῶν τριάκοντα, καὶ ὑπὸ πων συνοικισθεῖσαν; It is perhaps

Λακεδαιμονίων τὰ τείχη καθῃρέθη" καὶ
ἐκ τούτων ὅμως ἀμφοτέρων ἠλευθερώ-
θημεν καὶ τῆς τῶν Ἑλλήνων εὐδαιμονίας
ἠξιώθημεν προστάται γενέσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ
ὅσαι πώποτ᾽ ἀνάστατοι γεγόνασι. τοῦτο
μὲν γάρ, εἰ καὶ παλαιότερον εἰπεῖν ἐστι,
τὴν Τροίαν τίς οὐκ ἀκήκοεν, ὅτι μεγίστη
γεγενημένη τῶν τότε πόλεων καὶ πάσης
ἐπάρξασα τῆς ᾿Ασίας, ὡς ἅπαξ ὑπὸ τῶν

ΒΟΔΙΌΘΙΥ necessary to remark that the
particular bearing of this passage on
the question of Troy remains the same,
whether we admit or dispute the
speaker’s general proposition, that no
city, once made ἀνάττατος, had re-
covered its former prosperity. We
have seen that ἀνάστατος could be
rhetorically applied to Athens when

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM. Ly

The probable limits of date for this speech of Lycurgus fall
within the years 332—330 B.c. The restoration of Messene, to
which he alludes, had been decreed by Epameinondas about
forty years before, in 370 B.c. A modern traveller, when he
stands on Mount Ithome and looks down on the line of grey
walls and dismantled towers, massive in ruin, winding over the
Messenian fields to the west, can still imagine something of
the effect which that restoration produced in its own day, and
which finds contemporary expression in the spirited Archi-
damus of Isocrates (366 B.c.). The desolation of Messene
during so many centuries afforded an admirable illustration to
Lycurgus, rather enhanced than diminished by the fact that old
men could remember the time when the new Messene had
arisen on that deserted site.

But the site of Troy, says Lycurgus, has remained desolate to
the hour at which he speaks. Now we will suppose that there
is some rhetorical exaggeration here ; that a village, or it may be
a petty town, existed at that time on the reputed site of Homeric
Ilium ; and that the orator did not necessarily mean more than
that the existence of Troy as a great city had been finally closed
when the Achaeans sacked it. On this hypothesis we shall, indeed,
be compelled to admit that the inaccuracy of his language is as
remarkable as its emphasis; especially when we consider the
apparent precision with which he discriminates the case of Troy
from that of Messene. But what if this village or petty town
on the reputed site of Troy had then recently been erected
into a city, had been embellished with buildings, endowed with
signal honours and privileges? And what if all this had been
done on an occasion the most impressive that could have been
found in the eyes of the whole Hellenic race, by the command
of a man whose every word was then awaited with breathless
anxiety by Greece, and especially by Athens—whose slightest
personal or political act was a theme of debate or gossip for
every council-chamber or gymnasium, as being the act of one

temporarily abandoned by its citizens
to the Persians (Isocr. Panegyr. § 98).
Mantineia, made ἀνάστατος in 383 B.C.
(tb. ὃ 126), more than regained its
former strength when rebuilt after the
battle of Leuctra. But the context
is decisive. Lycurgus intends the

H. 8.—VOL. II.

utter destruction of a very powerful
city, such as he conceives Troy ;
Nineveh would be another example
in his sense. And, in all cases,
ἀνάστατος implies a definite breach
of continuity in political existence.

18 HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

who held in his hands the destinies of the Hellenic world ?
Could the grave statesman have then told a large tribunal
of Athenian citizens that, while Messene had long been
desolate .before it was restored forty years ago, the site of
Troy had remained uninhabited to that day ?

The speech may be referred, we saw, to 332—330 8.6.
The battle of the Granicus was fought in 334 B.c. Before
it, on landing in the Troad, Alexander had made his pious visit
to the Greek Ilium. After the victory, he gave substantial proof
of gratitude to the Ilian gods and heroes. Besides adorning
with votive offerings the temple of Athené Ilias, he proclaimed
that the humble town of Ilum—then such as was styled a
κωμόπολις---Βῃου ἃ henceforth enjoy the title of ‘city’; should
be beautified with buildings; should be accounted ‘ free,’ and
‘exempt from imposts.’! The degree in which this event
had impressed the imagination of Greece is indicated by the
circumstance that, more than three hundred years later,
Strabo finds it worthy of comparison with the important
benefits which Augustus had conferred upon Ilium.? And
this event was fresh in all men’s minds,—it was at most but
four years past,—when Lycurgus spoke. The passage in his
speech proves two things:—1. That in his belief, and the belief
received among the Athenians who heard him, the site of
Homeric Troy had since the siege remained desolate. 2. Con-
sequently, that the Greek Tlium—which had been so lately
and so impressively aggrandised—did not stand on the site of
Homeric Troy.

It is interesting to observe that, personally, Lycurgus was a
man likely to have been versed in what could then be known or
conjectured regarding the scenes of the Iliad. It was he who
had made the first recorded effort to arrest a process of cor-
ruption which was already invading the texts of the tragic
dramatists. Those standard copies which afterwards passed
into the library of Alexandria are ascribed to his initiative, as
are also the memorial statues raised at the same period to

1 Strabo ΧΠῚ. ὃ 26: τὴν δὲ τῶν ἀναθήμασί τε κοσμῆσαι τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ
᾿Ιλιέων πόλιν τῶν νῦν τέως μὲν κώμην προσαγορεῦσαι πόλιν καὶ οἰκοδομίαις
εἶναί φασι τὸ ἱερὸν ἔχουσαν τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἀναλαβεῖν προστάξαι τοῖς ἐπιμεληταῖς
μικρὸν καὶ εὐτελές, ᾿Αλέξανδρον δὲ dva- ἐλευθέραν τε κρῖναι καὶ ἄφορον.
βάντα μετὰ τὴν ἐπὶ Γρανίκῳ νίκην ΡΝ

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC JILIUM. 19

Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.!_ Such a feeling for great
poetry, joined to such zeal for the accuracy of tradition, indicates
a mind which would not have been negligent in comparing and
sifting any theories or legends which may then have been
current as to the site of Homeric Troy. When Lycurgus
expressly distinguishes the continued desolation of that site
from the long-delayed reparation of Messene, we are entitled,
nay constrained, to regard this statement not as the random
utterance of a heedless declaimer, but as the deliberate judg-
ment of one for whom such questions, as touching the noblest
poetical heritage of Greece, possessed a high and sacred interest.
The grounds on which his statement rested may very possibly
not have been such as would satisfy modern criticism; but it is
at least probable that he commanded, and used not carelessly,
such materials for the formation of an opinion as existed in
the age of Demosthenes. And his conclusion, whether correct
or not, was at any rate one which could be confidently addressed
to a large body of Athenian citizens, every one of whom had
lately had his attention drawn in the most striking way to
the Greek Ilium, and to its pretension of local identity with
the Ilios of Homer.

Taken with the evidence before cited, the passage of Lycurgus
may, I think, be said to clinch the proof of the point for which I
am now contending: viz., that in the general and settled belief
of the ancient Greeks, including the most competent judges,
Homeric Troy had been utterly destroyed, and had thereafter
remained desolate.

But among the inhabitants of the Greek Ilium, as we have
seen, there were dissentients from this belief, who not only
maintained that their town stood on the site of Homeric Troy,
but that the site had never been deserted; nay, that visible
monuments of Priam’s city were still among them. The
question which I propose next to consider is this:—Was that
theory practically confined to the Ilians themselves, or does it
appear to have obtained any considerable share of support
among judges presumably more impartial? Is anything known
καὶ τὸν τῆς πόλεως γραμματέα παρανα-

γιγνώσκειν τοῖς ὑποκρινομένοις, οὐκ ἐξεῖ-
γὰρ ἄλλως ὑποκρίνεσθαι [Plut.]

1 (εἰσήνεγκε νόμον) ws χαλκᾶς εἰκόνας
ἀναθεῖναι τῶν ποιητῶν, Αἰσχύλου, Σοφο-
κλέους, Εὐριπίδου, καὶ τὰς τραγῳδίας ναι

Vitt. X. Oratt. p. 841 F.

~ = Τὰ /
αὐτῶν ἐν κοινῳ ypayauevous φυλάττειν,
qZ

20 HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

as to the nature of the arguments by which it was advocated or
impugned, and as to the character of the authorities on either
side ?

As a preliminary to such an inquiry, it is necessary to glance
at the history—so far as it can be ascertained—of the Greek
Ilium. According to the authorities which Strabo. used, the
Aeolic settlement had shifted its seat more than once,
before it finally took up its abode on the site represented by
the mound of Hissarlik. This happened ‘in the time of the
Lydians,’ or, more precisely, ‘about the time of Croesus.’! Such
a removal of a small settlement from one site to another was by
no means unexampled in the Troad, and was one of the causes
which had contributed to the confusion of topography? in that
region. Thus ‘Dardanus was an ancient colony, but was of so
little account that the kings frequently changed its abode—at
one time removing it to Abydos—at another transferring it_
back to its original seat.’3 Another example was Scepsis, in
historical times distinguished from Palaiscepsis, a site about
seven miles distant,—whence the town had been removed, said the
legend, by Scamandrius the son of Hector and Ascanius the son
of Aeneas. Let this fact be carefully noted ; for it suggests
how the high antiquity of the Greek Ilium as a settlement in the
Troad might be reconciled with a comparatively late date for its
first establishment as a town on the site of Hissarlik. And hence,
supposing that the historical prototype of Homeric Troy was a
town which stood at Hissarlik, the tradition that the Homeric
site had remained desolate may have been derived from Aeolic
legends which arose while that site still was desolate—the
Aeolic settlement having then a different seat. We might
accept such a date as Strabo mentions for the foundation at
Hissarlik, viz. ‘in the time of Croesus’ (cire. 560—546 B.c.), and
might still hold that an Aeolic Ilium existed elsewhere much
earlier.

It is remarkable that the latest date suggested by ancient
writers for the foundation of the Greek Ihum at Hissarlik should

1 Strabo xu. ὃ 25. ἱστοροῦσι πλείους 2 τῆς συγχύσεως τῶν τόπων: ἴ.6. § 22.
μεταβεβληκέναι τόπους τὴν πόλιν, ὕστατα 3 7.5. 8 28, πολλάκις οἱ βασιλεῖς of
δ᾽ ἐνταῦθα συμμεῖναι κατὰ Κροῖσον ud- μὲν μετῴκιζον αὐτὴν εἰς ~ABvdov οἱ δὲ

λιστα. Op. ὃ 42, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν Λυδῶν ἡ ἀνῴκιζον πάλιν εἰς τὸ ἀρχαῖον κτίσμα.
νῦν ἐκτίσθη κατοικία καὶ τὸ ἱερόν. * lic. § 52.

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM. 21

have been the reign of the last Lydian king. As this date
is mentioned in connection with an argument to show that the
Greek Ilium was not the Homeric, but was of recent origin, we
may infer that some reason existed which precluded even the
advocates of this view from going below the reign of Croesus.
And the most natural account of such a reason would seem to
be that the Greek Ilium preserved some well-marked traces of
Lydian influence—in traits of its architecture, for instance, in
some objects of art, or in some appliances of household life; or
if not in these, at least in some definite and well-known tra-
ditions. Now, immediately below those remains which alone he
would ascribe to the Greek Ilium, Dr. Schliemann found some
traces of Lydian workmanship which induce him to believe that
a Lydian settlement had preceded the Greek town on this site.4
It seems unnecessary to suppose a distinct Lydian settlement,
when it is remembered that the Troad is stated to have been
subject to Lydia in the reign of Gyges (circ. 700—660 B.c.), and
had doubtless been so from a much earlier time. The Aecolic
settlement had probably been established at Hissarlik long
before the reign of Croesus—the date assigned by those who
sought to reduce its antiquity. A superior limit cannot, how-
ever, be assigned with any approach to precision. The Lydian
kingdom, under the dynasty of the Heracleidae, existed as
a neighbour of the great Assyrian Empire from about 1220
to 750 B.c. Then, like the Medes and Babylonians in the
east, Lydia grew in power, and under the dynasty of the
Carian Mermnadae rose, in the sixth century B.c., to be an
independent empire of like rank with Media. Strabo’s vaguer
phrase, ἐπὶ Λυδῶν, would thus more than cover the whole
period within which can be placed the epoch of the early Aeolic
settlements in the Troad. We can only say, indeed, that they
were probably earlier than the Dorian and Ionian colonisation
of the Asiatic seaboard ; that Lesbos and Cyme were the chief
points from which the early Aeolic settlers worked their way
inland ; that stations on the coast, at such places as Assus,
Antandrus, Sigeum, must have preceded the occupation of such
interior sites as that at Hissarlik. Dr. Schliemann thinks that

1 This distinct Lydian settlement Remains, but has been introduced for

was not supposed by Dr. Schliemann the first time in 77108.
in his earlier work, Troy and its

22 HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

the Aeolic ium had been ‘already long established’ at Hissarlik
in the ninth century Β.0.} Iam not aware of anything which
can be said against that view; though (unless objects found at
Hissarlik can prove it) its probability must rest on general
grounds, Granting it, however, to be approximately correct,
then we certainly do not need to suppose a previous Lydian
settlement ; the wonder is not that traces of Lydian or oriental
work should be found in the remains of an Aeolic town of
that age; rather it would have been surprising if they were
absent.

T will now take in chronological order the chief historical
notices of Ilium.

1. 480 B.c. Herod. vii. 427? Xerxes, marching from Sardis
to the Hellespont, visits the Trojan plain. On reaching the
Scamander, ‘he went up to the Pergamon of Priam, desiring to
inspect it. When he had done so, and had tnquired touching all
those famous things, he sacrificed a thousand oxen to the Ilian
Athene, and the magi poured drink-offerings to the heroes.’
θεησάμενος δὲ καὶ πυθόμενος κείνων Exacta: this phrase makes
it clear that Ilium was already ‘a show-place.’ The passage by
no means proves that the ‘Pergamon of Priam’ was then
identified with the acropolis of the Greek Ilium; but, to
my mind, it strongly suggests it: for the temple of Athene
Ihas stood on that acropolis, whence Mindarus, while doing
sacrifice, descried the seafight off Rhoeteum in 411 B.c. (Xen.
Hellen. τ. 1. § 4). The mention of the heroes is a hint that κείνων
is not to be referred to the Pergamon alone, but includes the
sites pointed out in the plain, such as the tumuli of Achilles,
Patroclus, Ilus, Aesyetes, and Batieia. In later days, at any
rate, the precise positions of the Homeric φηγός and wild fig
tree were pointed out to visitors.

2. 399 B.c. Xen. Hellen. ut. i.10/. Ilium, though a walled
town, appears as one of the weaker places in the Troad. The
Greek towns there, with the exception of some on the sea-coast,
were at this time subject to Pharnabazus, the satrap of Phrygia,
forming what Xenophon calls ἡ Φαρναβάζου Αἰολίς. Two of the
chief towns, Scepsis and Gergis, had just been seized by Meidias,

1 Jlios p. 517. καὶ πυθέμενος κείνων ἕκαστα, TH ᾿Αθηναίῃ

2 ἐς τὸ Πριάμου Πέργαμον ἀνέβη τῇ ᾿Ἰλιάδι ἔθυσε βοῦς χιλίας, χοὰς δὲ
μερον ἔχων θεήσασθαι᾽ θεησάμενος δὲ οἷ μάγοι τοῖσι ἥρωσι ἐχέαντο.

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM. 23

the son-in-law of a Dardanian Greek who had been the satrap’s
lieutenant-governor; but the other towns were still held for
Pharnabazus by Greek garrisons. JDercyllidas, arriving in
command of the Lacedaemonian army, summons these towns
of the Troad to surrender—offering them freedom and alliance.
οἱ μὲν οὖν Νεανδρεῖς καὶ Ἰλιεῖς καὶ Κοκυλῖται ἐπείθοντο : ‘Ac-
cordingly the people of Neandria, [lium, and Cocylus complied,’
their Greek garrisons being dissatisfied with their treatment by
the satrap. The mention of Ilium between two such petty
neighbours sufficiently shows its insignificance. Scepsis and
Gergis, on the other hand, are called ‘strong cities’ (§ 15), the
latter having ‘very high towers’ (§ 22): Cebren is ‘a very
strong place’ (§ 14). In eight days the Spartan general becomes
master of nine towns, and Pharnabazus makes truce. It may
be noticed that both at Scepsis and at Gergis Dercyllidas
sacrifices to a local Athene on the acropolis. A passing mention
by .Demosthenes shows that, in 359 B.c., [ium was still fortified.
Charidemus, in breach of his compact with Artabazus, seizes
Scepsis, Cebren, and Ilium—all of which seem then to have had
walls capable of resisting besiegers.”

3. 334 B.c. Alexander, on landing in the Troad, visits Ilium,
sacrifices to the Ilian Athene, and dedicates in her temple his
own panoply. In its stead, he took down from the temple walls
some of those consecrated arms which were said to have served
in the Trojan war. These—including the ‘sacred shield’ known
as that of Achilles—were carried before him by his esquires
when he went into battle. He crowned and anointed the tomb
of Achilles—from whose son Pyrrhus he claimed descent—and
ran round it naked, with his companions: while Hephaestion
paid like honours to the tomb of Patroclus. He offered sacrifice
on the altar of Zeus Herkeios to the shade of Priam, deprecating

1 Farlier in the very same year in 352B.c.). Cp. Plut. Seré. 1.

From a later

(399 B.c.) Xenophon had led the rem-
nant of the Ten Thousand through the
Troad, from Lampsacus, over Mount
Ida, to Antandrus; but he does not
notice Ilium: 4dnab. vu. 8 ὃ 7. In
a writer whose Homeric sympathies
were so keen, the silence is signifi-
cant.

3 Dem. In Aristocr. § 154 (spoken

8 Arrian, I. 12 § 7.
passage of Arrian (vi. 9 § 3) it appears
that Peucestas, son of Alexander of
Mieza in Macedonia, had the honour
of bearing before the King τὴν ἱερὰν
ἀσπίδα...ἥν ἐκ τοῦ νεὼ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς
τῆς Ἰλιάδος λαβὼν ἅμα οἷ εἶχεν
᾿Αλέξανδρος, καὶ πρὸ αὐτοῦ ἐφέρετο ἐν
ταῖς μάχαις. Cp. Plut, Alex..15.

24 HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

his wrath against the race of Achilles. Games were celebrated.
Golden crowns were presented to Alexander by Asiatics and
Greeks, as by the Athenian Chares, who then held Sigeum.
Either at this first visit, or as Strabo says, after the battle of the
Granicus, Alexander commanded that the poor town of Ilium
should be enlarged by new buildings, and have the rank of
‘city.’ He declared it politically independent, and exempt from
tribute. These two latter privileges—autonomia and ateleia—
were conferred, as an inscription shows, on Erythrae? also, and
were doubtless shared by other Greek towns of Ionia and Aeolis.

4. 301—281 38.c. North-western Asia Minor, from the
Hellespont to Phrygia, was added to the dominions of Lysi-
machus by the battle of Ipsus (301 B.c.). The prosperity of
Ilium was still further advanced by him. He built a handsome
temple of Athene, gave the city a wall of five miles in circum-
ference, and incorporated with it some decayed towns of the
neighbourhood. In doing this, Lysimachus was executing: an
intention of Alexander, who, after the final overthrow of the
Persian Empire, had despatched a gracious letter to Ilium,
promising to confer on it still ampler benefits, to make it a
creat city, to give it a splendid temple, and to institute sacred
games.” The respect of Lysimachus for Alexander's memory
is similarly seen in the fact that he gave the new name of
Alexandria Troas to the city founded by Antigonus on the
west coast of the Troad, and by him called Antigonia: since
‘piety seemed to prescribe that the successors of Alexander
should perpetuate is name by the founding of cities, before
they recorded their own, ?

5. An inscription found at Hissarlik (and referred, on account
of the form of the characters, to the time of Antigonus Doson,
229—220 B.c.) shows that in the third century B.c. ium was
the head of a κοινόν, or federal league of free Greek towns,
which probably comprised the district from Lampsacus on
the Hellespont to Gargara on the Adramyttian Gulf. This

1? Erythraean inscription in Monats- λύσιν τῶν Περσῶν ἐπιστολὴν καταπέμψαι

berichte of Berlin Academy (1875),
p. 554. διότι ἐπί τε ᾿Αλεξάνδρου καὶ
᾿Αντιγόνου αὐτόνομος ἣν καὶ ἀφορο-
λόγητος ἡἣ πόλις ὑμῶν. Droysen,
Geschichte des Hellenismus, 1. 233.

- 2 [Αλέξανδρόν φασι] μετὰ τὴν κατά-

φιλάνθρωπον, ὑπισχνούμενον πόλιν τε
ποιῆσαι μεγάλην καὶ ἱερὸν ἐπισημότατον
καὶ ἀγῶνα ᾿ποδείξειν ἱερόν. Strabo ΧΙΠ.
§ 96.

3 Le. ἐκείνου πρότερον κτίζειν ἐπωνύ-
μους: πύλεις, εἴθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν. '

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM. 25

league had a Federal Council, συνέδριον, which exercised inde-
pendent political powers. It appears probable that it had been
formed before 306 B.c., and that Alexander had authorised this
distinct organisation under the city which he had so greatly
favoured, instead of incorporating the Greek cities of Aeolis with
the general Hellenic κοινόν which had its συνέδριον at Corinth.!
Another inscription, of date cire. 280—200 B.c., distinguishes the
‘royal domain’ (βασιλικὴ χώρα) of King Antiochus in North-
West Asia Minor from that belonging to the autonomous Greek
cities in alliance with him, as Ilium, Scepsis, and Gergis.?

6. Twice in the third century B.c. Ilium was visited by the
Gauls. In 278 B.c., or early in 277, after a successful raid on
Thrace and the Chersonese, a detachment under Lutarius?2
crossed the Hellespont. According to Hegesianax, a native of
Alexandria Troas (flor. circ. 190 B.c.), they went to Ilium,
‘desiring a stronghold,’ but at once abandoned it, ‘because it
was unfortified.’* The literal accuracy of this statement may
be questioned : though it is quite possible that the Gauls may
have found Ilium too weak for a fastness of marauders. Sixty
years later, Attalus I. of Pergamus brought some Gauls over

11 do not observe any reference in
Ilios (p. 683) to Droysen’s interesting
discussion of this inscription (first pub-
lished by G. Hirschfeld in the Archaco-
logische Zeitung, new series, VII. (1875,
p. 153) ; see Geschichte des Hellenismus,
11. 2, 382.

* The inscription is a decree by
which Antiochus (perhaps the Great,
222-186 B.c.) grants to one Aristo-
dicides of Assus an extensive tract of
arable land, which he is directed
προσενέγκασθαι πρὸς τὴν ᾿Ιλιέων πόλιν
4 Σκηψίων. This is rendered in Dr.
Schliemann’s J/ios (p. 629), ‘for him to
confer on the city of Ilium or on the
city of Scepsis.’

But the meaning evidently is—‘ for
him ¢o attach to [lium or Scepsis,” 1.6.
to hold under one of those cities.
Antiochus wished to avoid establishing
Aristodicides as independent proprietor
on so large a portion of the βασιλικὴ
χώρα in the Troad as 2000 plethra.
This would have given him a_posi-

tion intermediate between that of the
royal suzerain and of the autonomous
towns like Ilium, and might have
become the first step to a δυναστεία.
The king therefore directs that the
tenure of Aristodicides shall be civic,
subject to the authorities of one or
another of the larger free munici-
palities.

3 While the other leader, Leonnorius,
returns to Byzantium ; Liv. xxxvVIIt.
16. Strabo, on the other hand, mentions
Leonnorius as ἀρχηγὸς μάλιστα τῆς
περαιώσεως (XII. 566), and Memnon
(x1x. 3) names both.

+ robs Γαλάτας περαιωθέντας ἐκ τῆς
Εὐρώπης ἀναβῆναι μὲν εἰς τὴν πόλιν
δεομένους ἐρύματος᾽ παραχρῆμα δ᾽ ἐκλι-
πεῖν διὰ τὸ ἀτείχιστον. Strab. ΧΠῚ.
§ 27, Hegesianax, a friend of Antio-
chus the Great, for whom he once
discharged an embassy, was both a
poet and a historian ; the statement in
the text is referred to his work entitled
Miller, Frag. Hist. 111. 68.

Tpwikd,

26 HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

from Europe to help him in his war with Achaeus. After
deserting his standard, they fell to pillaging the towns on the
Hellespont, and finally besieged Ilium. The inhabitants of
Alexandria Troas sent a force of four thousand men, raised the
siege of Ihum, and drove the Gauls out of the Troad.?

7. 190 B.c. At about this time Demetrius of Scepsis, then
a boy, remembered Ilium to have been in a state of decay. It
was, he says, ‘a neglected place’: the houses ‘ had not even roofs
of tiles’ (but merely of thatch).2 There is not the slightest
reason to doubt this. No Seleucid king appears to have taken
such interest in the well-being of Ilium as was felt by Alexander
and Lysimachus: while the incursions of the Gauls, and the
insecure state of the Troad during the latter part of the third
century B.C., would necessarily have affected the prosperity of
the place. The temple on the acropolis still, of course, retained
its prestige. In 192 B.c, Antiochus the Great led a fleet to the
aid of the Aetolians : before sailing from the Troad, he went up
from the coast to Ilion, and sacrificed to the lian Athene.*

8. 190 B.c. Shortly before the battle of Magnesia, which
destroyed the Asiatic power of Antiochus, the Roman army
crossed the Hellespont and entered the Troad. The legend of
Roman descent from Aeneas was officially recognised at Rome ;
and it was convenient to recall it at a moment when the Roman
arms were entering ‘Asia. The townsfolk of Ilium welcomed
their kinsmen with a cordiality which was doubtless sincere ;
and the Roman consul, Lucius Scipio, offered sacrifice to Athene
on the acropolis.* His brother and legate, the great Africanus,

1 Poly brave 11]-
οὐπορθούντων μετὰ πολλῆς ἀσελγείας
καὶ βίας τὰς ἐφ’ Ἑλλησπόντῳ πόλεις,
τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον καὶ πολιορκεῖν τοὺς

a mari ascendit, ut Minervae sacrifi-
caret.’ Liv. xxxy. 43.

4 ‘Inde Ilium processit, castrisque
in campo, qui est subiectus moeni-

τῶν yap Γαλατῶν

Ἰλιεῖς ἐπιβαλλομένων... Θεμίστην... ἐξα-
ποστείλαντες μετ᾽ ἀνδρῶν τετρακισχιλίων
ἔλυσαν μὲν τὴν ᾿Ιλιέων πολιορκίαν, ἐξέ-
βαλον δ᾽ ἐκ πάσης τῆς Τρῳάδος τοὺς
Γαλάτας, κ.τ.λ.

2 φησί γοῦν Δημήτριος ὃ Σκήψιος,
μειράκιον ἐπιδημήσας εἰς τὴν πόλιν κατ᾽
ἐκείνους τοὺς καιρούς, οὕτως ὠλιγωρη-
μένην ἰδεῖν τὴν κατοικίαν ὥστε μηδὲ
κεραμωτὰς ἔχειν τὰς στέγας. Strabo
XII. § 27.

3 *Priusquam solveret naves, Ilium

bus, positis, in urbem arcemque [the
“ Πέργαμον cum escendisset, sacrifi-
cavit Minervae praesidi arcis ; et Ilien-
sibus in omni rerum verborumque
honore ab se oriundos Romanos prae-
ferentibus, et Romanis laetis origine
sua’: ‘ While the Ilians, with every
mark of honour which act or word
could express, vaunted the Ilian descent
of the Romans, and the Romans exulted
in that lineage.’ (Liv. xxxvu. 37.) I
fail to find in these terms the justifica-

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM. 27

lay ill just then at Elaea, the harbour of Pergamus. But for
this accident, the ‘Homeric’ citadel where Alexander had
worshipped could have boasted a like homage from the Roman
conqueror of Zama. After the peace with Antiochus (189 B.c.),
the Romans annexed Rhoeteum and Gergis to Ilium—‘ not so
much in reward of recent services, as in memory of the source
from which their nation sprang.’! The liberties of Ilium and
the other Greek towns in the Troad were confirmed by Rome.

9, The subsequent history of Ilium is little more than that of
Roman benefits: the Roman ‘originum memoria’ is henceforth
the dominant note. Fimbria, indeed, took it after a siege of
ten days in 85 B.C., and left ruins behind him: but Sulla
presently repaired that havoc.? Augustus added territory to
Ilium, and confirmed its ancient privileges. The Emperor
Caracalla (211-217 4.D.), on his visit to Ilium, is said to have
emulated Alexander the Great in the honours which he paid to
the tomb of Achilles.* The latest coins found at Hissarlik by
Dr. Schliemann are those of Constantius II. (337-861 a.p.),

10. I must now say a few words on the most curious Greek
letter of the Emperor Julian, which Dr. Schliemann reprints
from the Hermes, vol. ix. 257—266. It was there first pub-
lished, from a MS. of the fourteenth century in the Harleian
Library (5610), by Dr. C. Henning.® It purports to be written
by Julian, after he had become emperor .(i.e. in 361-363 A.D.),
and to describe a visit which he had made to Ilium some years
before (apparently in December 354, or September to October 355).
No doubt of its authenticity is expressed by Dr. Schliemann.
tion of Ihne’s comment :—‘ If we may
judge from the style of Livy’s narrative,
the whole affair was a mere empty

formality, in which neither the heart
nor the imagination of the persons

merita, quam originum memoria.’ Liv.
XXXVIII. 39.

* Appian 1. 364 f. describes the
destruction by Fimbria as complete:
οἰκόπεδον οὐδὲν αὐτῆς οὐδ᾽ ἱερὸν οὐδ᾽

concerned was engaged’ (vol. 11. 159);
though it may be conceded that, in
these mutual protestations, the Ilians
were probably more effusive than their
warlike offspring. Caius Livius, the
colleague of Lucius Scipio in the
consulship of 190 B.c., had also visited
Ilium and offered sacrifice there (Liv.
XXXVII. 9).

1 ‘Tliensibus Rhoeteum et Gergithum
addiderunt, non tam ob recentia ulla

ἄγαλμα ἔτι ἦν. Strabo xii. § 27 says
that Sulla τοὺς Ἰλιέας παρεμυθήσατο
πολλοῖς ἐπανορθώμασι.

3 χώραν τε δὴ προσένειμεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ
τὴν ἐλευθερίαν καὶ τὴν ἀλειτουργησίαν
αὐτοῖς συνεφύλαξε: l.c.

4 Dio Cassius, LXXVII. 16; Herodian
Iv. 8842

° The Greek text of the letter is
given at length in Zlios, p. 180.

28 HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

Julian describes how, on visiting Ilium, he was received by
one Pegasius, who showed him over the place. This Pegasius
had been ‘a bishop of the Galileans’; and, says Julian, ‘I
would not easily have admitted him to my society, if I had
not been persuaded that, even while he seemed to be a Galilean
bishop, he had known how to worship and honour the gods.
Ι am not now telling you mere hearsay,’ Julian continues,
‘gathered from persons who speak with a friendly or hostile
bias,—for, indeed, I had heard a great many such stories about
him, and thought (by the gods!) that he was more to be
detested than any villain alive’ [as a zealous Christian].
Then the emperor gives the ‘facts and words’ which prove the
real sentiments of Pegasius, At Ilium he and Pegasius visit
the herdon of Hector, where a bronze image stands in a small
shrine: over against it, an image of Achilles in the open air.
The fires on the altars were still burning. Sacrifice had just
been done. The image of Hector had been anointed with oil.
‘«« Why do the Ilians offer these sacrifices?” I asked Pegasius,
cautiously sounding his opinions,’ Pegasius replies :—‘ What is
there unnatural in their honouring a good man, their own
citizen, just as we [Christians] honour the martyrs?’ Then
Julian proposes that they shall go to the temenos of the Ilian
Athene. Pegasius is most complaisant: ‘he led me thither
with the greatest good-will,—opened the temple door,—and, as
if calling me to witness his fidelity, showed me all the images
of the gods (ἀγάλματα) scrupulously preserved. Nor did he do
one of the things which those impious ones [οἱ δυσσεβεῖς ἐκεῖνοι
—Christians] are wont to do,—as when they trace upon their
foreheads the token of the impious one [make the sign of the
cross]; nor, like them, did he hiss to himself’ [in loathing of
the gods]. Lastly, they visit the Achilleion. Pegasius—who
was calumniously charged with having violated the tomb of
Achilles—approached it with profound reverence. ‘This,’ con-
cludes Julian, ‘I saw myself. I have heard, from those who are
his enemies, that he secretly makes prayer and does worship to

1 ἐγὼ δὲ καταλαβὼν ἐμπύρους ἔτι, ἀποπειρώμενος ἠρέμα πῶς ἔχει
μικροῦ δέω φάναι λαμπροὺς ἔτι, Tos γνώμης. ὁ δέ, καὶ τί τοῦτο ἄτοπον,
βωμούς, καὶ λιπαρῶς ἀληλιμμένην τὴν ἄνδρα ἀγαθὸν ἑαυτῶν πολίτην ὥσπερ
τοῦ Ἕκτορος εἰκόνα, πρὸς Πηγάσιον ἀπι- ἡμεῖς, ἔφη, τοὺς μάρτυρας, εἰ
“δών, τί ταῦτα, εἶπον, ᾿Ιλιεῖς θύουσιν ; θεραπεύουσιν ;

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM. 29

the Sun. Now would you not have admitted my testimony,
even Uf I had been a private person? .... Should we have made
Pegasius a priest, if we had been conscious of any impiety on
his part towards the gods? What if he did feign impiety
[6. Christianity], just with his lips, in those days [i.e. before
the pagan revival under Julian], and put on those rags,—for
the real purpose, as he often told me, of preserving the images
of the gods? Are not we (pagans) ashamed to treat bim as
(the Christian) Aphobius treated him, and as all the Galilaeans
pray to see him treated ?’

The acute reader will not now, I think, have much difficulty
in divining the drift of this imperial epistle. When Julian
was dead and the reaction was over, some enemy of this
Pegasius (possibly a friend, too, of Aphobius or his opinions)
desired to injure him, by representing him as a professed
Christian who was at heart a pagan, and whose true sym-
pathies had been plainly seen during the brief revival of
paganism under Julian. ‘Hven a private person,’ as the writer
frankly remarks, might be believed on such proofs: but an
emperor! And so the letter is ascribed to no less a personage
than Julian himself. Observe the mention of honours paid
to the tombs or relics of Christian martyrs.! This practice,
attested as early as the beginning of the third century, was
prevalent in the latter part of the fourth; and is here a
token that the letter really belongs to the age which it claims.
Pegasius must have been resident at Ilium; which, by the
way, is one of several places in the Troad which Constantine
Porphyrogenitus (911—959 A.D.) mentions as giving names to
bishoprics? As to the style, it is from the same mint as the
letters of Phalaris, Themistocles, Socrates, Euripides, &e. nd
I may observe—since the fact has not been noticed by Dr.
Schliemann or any of the numerous contributors to his volume
—that it is not the only letter of the kind which describes a
visit to Ilium. The teuth of the letters ascribed to Aeschines

1 The passage has been quoted
above. Remark in it also how the
writer is careful to mention the
anointing of Hector’s image (λιπαρὼς
ἀληλιμμένην)---ἃ detail of pagan wor-
ship loathed by Christians. Regarding
the honours paid to the martyrs at

this period, see the testimonies in
Gibbon (c. xxviii. vol. 111, Ὁ. 427,
ed, Smith) from the sophist Eunapius,
Caius apud Euseb. 11, 25; Chrysostom ;
and Jerome advers. Vigilantiwin.

2 Meyer, Z’roas p. 97 ; Ilios p. 183.

30 HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

relates the adventures of: a sight-seer who spent several days at
that place,! inspecting ‘the tombs,’ and whose Homeric enthu-
siasm was such that, as he tells us, he purposed to stay until he
had recited the appropriate verses of the J/iad at every one of the
Trojan sites! The really interesting fact which these letters of
-.* Julian’ and ‘ Aeschines’ reveal is that, in the earlier centuries
of our era, the Trojan apparatus of Ilium was still intact. The
temenos of the Ilian Athene was still sacred, her temple was
still adorned with statues : offerings still burned upon the altars :
the tumuli of the heroes were still shown: honours were still
paid to the spirits of Hector and Achilles, Then, about the
end of the fourth century A.D., Ilium is lost to view in the same
shades which close over Delphi, Olympia, and Delos,

The foregoing sketch has placed before the reader those facts
which it is necessary to know, in order to apprehend the points
of view from which: the ancient world regarded the claim of
the Greek Ilium to occupy the site of Homeric Troy. The
question had two aspects, which must be carefully distinguished ;
I may call them the political and the antiquarian.

Alexander the Great solemnly recognised Ilium as the repre-
sentative of Homeric Troy, possessing the very altar which had
stood on Priam’s citadel, the very arms which had been borne
by the heroes. The Roman consul, in like manner, offered -
sacrifice to the Ilian Athene, and publicly acknowledged Ilium
as the city of Aeneas, the metropolis of Rome. Each of these
official acts had a political meaning. The Aeacid legend was,
just then, of practical importance for Alexander. The Aenead
legend was, just then, of practical importance for the Romans.
Neither a Macedonian nor a Roman leader could have entered
Asia with any title-deed so impressive in the eyes of those
populations whose adhesion or antagonism was likely to turn
the scale. What did it matter to Alexander whether the lyre
of Paris which the Ilians showed was really the lyre of Paris

1 διατριβόντων γὰρ ἡμῶν πολλὰς κιτιλ. When this letter was written,

ἡμέρας ἐν Ἰλίῳ καὶ μὴ πληρουμένων
τῆς θέας τῶν τάφων (ἣν δέ μοι γνώμη
μένειν ἕως ἅπαντα διεξέλθω τὰ ἐν τῇ
᾿Ιλιάδι ἔπη πρὸς αὐτοῖς ἑκάστοις ὑπὲρ ὧν
τὰ ἔπη ἐστὶ γεγενημένα) ἐμπίπτει ἡμέρα,

then, the trade of the local περιηγηταί
at Ilium was still flourishing ; and many
traits of language (as the use of μή)
indicate a date later than Lucian,
perhaps cire. 250—400 A.D,

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM. 31

or not? What did the Romans care whether this or that was
the precise point at which their pious ancestor had sallied
forth with Anchises on his back? There was no doubt, at any
rate, about the Trojan plain, Mount Ida, and the Hellespont.
The descendant of Achilles, the progeny of Aeneas, felt no
desire to press the [lians with trivial or indiscreet questions ; it
might, indeed, have been awkward in many ways. And thus—
affirmed by religious rites, military pomp, imperial favour—the
sanction of two independent traditions,—each in its own day
bound up with the mastery of the world,—was given to the Greek
Ilium, It became the Homeric Troy—if we may be allowed the
phrase—of official language and ceremonial. ‘To deny this claim
on a public occasion,—as when Augustus was decreeing favours
to it, Nero speaking of it in the Forum, or Caracalla honouring
it with his presence,—would have been an uncourtly and un-
popular heresy. It might have been expected that the set of
the vulgar tide would have had its usual influence on the private
judgment of ‘independent’ and ‘original’ critics. But when
we inquire what appears to have been the general verdict of
presumably competent judges, the result is very remarkable.

As Strabo is our principal authority on this question, it is
indispensable to consider, first of all, the nature of the sources
which he appears to have used for the account of the Troad in
his thirteenth book. As a native of Amaseia in Cappadocia,
‘he may well have felt a more than ordinary interest in the
geographical antiquities of Asia Minor; and nowhere else,
perhaps, in his whole work is his diligence more animated than
in his survey of the scenes made immortal by the J/iad. Else-
where he has declared his belief that Homer is the ‘ pioneer of
geographical lore,’ ἀρχηγέτης Ths γεωγραφικῆς ἐμπειρίας. Here,
on the threshold of the Troad, he claims the indulgence of his
readers on these special grounds: (1) the voluminous character
of the materials accumulated by writers who have discussed the
sites of this district ; (2) the changes of population, Hellenic or
barbarian, which the country has experienced ; (3) the incom-
patibility, and occasional obscurity, of the accounts given by
the numerous writers whom he has consulted—beginning with
Homer, who, as he truly observes, ‘leaves room for conjecture
on most points.’ We have not very long to wait for an

1 Strabo ΧΠΙ. § 1.

32 HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

example which illustrates the meaning of this appeal. What
are the boundaries of Aeolis? What is the proper meaning of
‘Troia’? There is no agreement among the authorities ; Strabo
gives us our choice of the following * :—

1. Homer, who takes the east boundary of the Troad from
the Aesépus.

2. Eudoxus, the geographer, of Cyzicus, whom, as he tells us
himself elsewhere, Ptolemy Euergetes II. sent on a voyage to
India, cire. 130 B.c. This writer slightly contracts the limit,
taking it from Priapus and Artacé in the Cyzicenian territory.

3. Damastes of Sigeum—who, if, as was said, he was a
disciple of Hellanicus, must have flourished about 400 B.c.: a
writer whom Strabo elsewhere blames Eratosthenes for follow-
ing too implicitly. Damastes, again, further reduces the size of
the Troad—taking it from Parion.

4. Charon of Lampsacus (who flourished perhaps about
500 B.C.) takes off another thirty-five miles or so.

5. Scylax of Caryanda (near Halicarnassus: flor. perhaps circ.
350 B.c.,—the reputed author of our Περίπλους) begins from
Abydus.

6. ELphorus agrees with the last-named. This historian (a
pupil of Isocrates) must have dealt with the Troad in the sixth
book (Ἀσία καὶ λιβύη) of his Hellenic, or rather Universal,
History from the return of the Heracleidae to 341 B.c. ‘ And
others, Strabo adds, ‘speak otherwise.’

This is an instance of the methodical manner in which he
set to work : the authors are ranked as above,—.e., not in order
of time, but from the largest definition of the Troad to the
smallest. We have seen that, when a learned Greek writer
says φασίν, or the like, he usually has in view several particular
authorities, whom he does not care to enumerate by name.
With regard to Strabo’s account of the Troad,—in which he
frequently uses such phrases,—the inference is not .merely
probable but certain. In the passage just noticed, where the
witnesses (iffvred, it was necessary to name each; and he named
no fewer than five besides Homer: Eudoxus, Damastes, Charon,
Scylax, Ephorus. So in other passages of this book, where
some local point is under discussion, he quotes Heracleides

LOS Soa

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM. 33

Ponticus, Callisthenes, Timosthenes of Rhodes, the geographer
Artemidorus, Posidonius of Apamea, &e. It is abundantly
clear that Strabo was thoroughly conversant with the literature
—voluminous, as he himself says—which dealt with the topo-
graphy of the Troad.

Now we will see how he deals with the question as to the site
of Homeric Troy, When a topographical question—especially
concerning a famous place—is one on which weighty opinions
are divided, Strabo never fails to say so. But here there is no
trace of such perplexity. Strabo introduces the subject by
simply saying, as if stating a generally acknowledged fact :—
‘Tlus did not found his city on the present site, but about
thirty stadia [about 32 miles] further inland to the east, nearer
Ida and Dardania, at what is now called the village of the
Tlians. The present Ilians, liowever,—whose vanity prompts them
to identify the existing with the ancient city—have provoked
controversy on the part of those who judge from Homer's
poetry; for it is not probable that the present city was the
Homeric. And others, too, [in addition to those who judge
from Homer's poetry,] relate that the city has changed its site
several times, and finally took up its present site about the
time of Croesus,’ ἢ

It appears, then, that the accepted view among Homeric and
historical students was against the claim of Ilium to be Homer’s
Troy ; and that this claim was regarded as springing simply
from the vainglory of the Ilians. Then follows a rapid his-
torical sketch of the Greek Ilium, based on several authorities,
And then we come to the topography of the Ilian plain. The
valleys of the Simois and the Scamander are briefly defined,
with reference to the Greek Ilium. ‘A little further to the
east,’ Strabo continues, ‘is the village of the Ilians, where it is
believed (νομίζεται) that the ancient Ilium was situated, thirty
stadia distant from the present city.’ ‘No vestige of the

1 Jb, § 25. οὐ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα ἵδρυσε σχήκασι λόγον τοῖς ἐκ τῆς Ομήρου

τὴν πόλιν ὅπου νῦν ἔστιν, ἀλλὰ σχεδόν
τι τριάκοντα σταδίοις ἀνωτέρω πρὸς
ἕω καὶ πρὸς τὴν Ἴδην καὶ τὴν
Δαρδανίαν κατὰ τὴν νῦν καλουμένην
᾿Ιλιέων κώμην (at Akshi-Kioi). οἱ δὲ
νῦν ᾿Ιλιεῖς φιλοδοξοῦντες καὶ θέ-
λοντες εἶναι ταύτην τὴν παλαιὰν παρε-

HoS:—VOL, 11.

ποιήσεως τεκμαιρομένοις' οὐ γὰρ ἔοικεν
αὕτη εἶναι ἡ καθ᾽ “Ὅμηρον. καὶ ἄλλοι
δὲ ἱστοροῦσι πλείους μεταβεβληκέναι
τόπους τὴν πόλιν, ὕστατα δ᾽ ἐνταῦθα
συμμεῖναι κατὰ Κροῖσον μάλιστα.

2 70. ὃ 35.

34 HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

ancient city is preserved’:? though ‘the present Ilians’ have
a story that Troy was only partially destroyed.* ‘Its utter
destruction is, however, allowed with one consent by the writers
from Homer onwards—among others, by the orator Lycurgus.’ 3
And ‘it is conjectured (εἰκάξουσιν that the ancient site was
thenceforth shunned as ill-omened.*

When we consider these phrases—oi ἐκ τῆς Ομήρου ποιήσεως
TEKMaLlpomevor—Kal ἄλλοι δὲ ἱστοροῦσι---νομίζεται---εἰκάζουσι;
&c.—when we consider, further, the positive proofs given above
that Strabo had before him a large number of writers on the
Troad,—is it possible, I ask, to deny that Strabo’s rejection of
the Greek Ilium’s claim to be Homeric Troy is based on the
general consent of the best authorities available to him, that is,
of those writers who had studied the subject, in the full light
of ancient tradition and local knowledge, from the time of the
earliest logographers to the age of Augustus? I maintain that
it is impossible to deny it; and I venture to think that the
same will be the conclusion of any reader who has taken the
trouble to follow the course of the foregoing argument.

Among the numerous writers whom Strabo consulted on this
subject, one was necessarily prominent, since the nature of his
work had led him to investigate the question with especial
minuteness. This was Demetrius, a native of Scepsis in the
Troad, who, as we have seen, had been in boyhood about 190
B.C.; he is described as contemporary with his fellow-labourers
on Homer, Crates and Aristarchus.6 Demetrius wrote a work,
in thirty books, entitled Τρωϊκὸς διάκοσμος, The Marshalling
of the Trojans, an exhaustive commentary on the catalogue of
the Trojan forces in the second book of the Jliad. This work
appears to have been one of the most wonderful monuments of
scholarly labour which even the indefatigable erudition of the
Alexandrian age produced. The most complete examination of
every point which the subject raised or suggested was supported
by stores of learning drawn from every province of ancient
literature, from every source of oral or local tradition.

1 Ib. ὃ 38. οὐδὲν δ᾽ ἴχνος σώζεται 5 70. § 55. κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον

τῆς ἀρχαίας πόλεως“. γεγονὼς Κράτητι καὶ ᾿Αριστάρχῳ He
2.70. ὃ 40. was ἃ μειράκιον (ὃ 27) ὅτε πρῶτον Ῥωμαῖοι
3 Jb. ὶ 41. τῆς ᾿Ασίας ἐπέβησαν: and would have

4.Χ0. § 42. been in middle life about 160-150 B.c.

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM. 35

Mythology, history, geography, the monographs of topographers,
the observations of travellers, poetry of every age and kind,
science in all its ancient branches, appear to have been laid
under contribution by this encyclopaedic commentator, who
must have deserved the epithet of yadxévrepos almost as well as
Didymus. The great reputation of his Diacosmus in antiquity
is attested by the frequency with which it is quoted, often at
length, in the most various contexts. It was, in fact, a repertory
of archeological lore, and was used much as a modern student
uses a dictionary of antiquities. It is quoted by the scholiasts
on Homer, Pindar, and Apollonius Rhodius; by Harpocration,
Suidas, Tzetzes, Stephanus Byzantinus; by Ptolemaeus, son of
Hephaestion, an Alexandrian scholar in the reign of Trajan,
from whose καινὴ ἱστορία Photius gives a long excerpt.
Athenaeus cites Demetrius, sometimes at length, on about
fifteen different occasions; Strabo quotes him, not merely in
reference to North-Western Asia Minor, but in seven other
divisions of his work, and in more than twenty-five passages.”
One or two of these will serve as specimens. In his First Book.
which forms part of a general introduction to the detailed
treatment of particular countries, Strabo is discussing the
action of exceptional physical causes, such as deluge or earth-
quake, in altering the configuration of the earth’s surface.
Many writers, he says, have collected instances of such
calamities ; but it will suffice to mention the examples adduced
by Demetrius of Scepsis. The J/iad says that the Scamander
has two springs (πηγαί), one warm, the other cold. Demetrius
had suggested that the disappearance of the warm spring might
have been due to seismic disturbance, and, in illustration of this
theory, had referred to recorded instances of great earthquakes
in Lydia and Ionia—extending from Ionia even as far as the
Troad, by which whole villages were swallowed up, Mount
Sipylus rent, and lakes formed out of marshes. The calamity
at Chios, which the whole civilised world is now deploring,
is thus but the latest effort of the forces whose activity in pre-
cisely that region Demetrius could trace back to a prehistoric

1 Cod. 190. the Fragmenta Historicorum, p. 382.
2 A list of references to very many Even in a voluminous special work
quotations from Demetrius is given it would have been impracticable to
by Miller, in the 4th volume of transcribe a fourth part of them.
D2

36 HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

past. Again, in his account of Argolis, Strabo says that between
Troezen and Epidaurus there was a place called Mé@ava; but
that in some Mss. [in all owr Mss.] of Thucydides it was
written Me@wvn. Hence, Demetrius thought, it had been in-
correctly substituted for the Macedonian Methone, in the legend
which represented the people of the Argolic town as refusing
ships to Agamemnon.? In describing the Elean Triphylia.
again, Strabo notices that the worship of Demeter and Perse-
phone is there in peculiarly close association with the worship of
Hades. The reason, he adds, may be that which Demetrius of
Scepsis suggests ; Triphylia yields good crops, but it also produces
the black-spined nightshade, and is subject to the red-blight.?
The general impression left by these and similar notices of
Demetrius is that of a thoughtful mind, essentially critical,
with considerable ingenuity, and with the power of concen-
trating varied knowledge on a given point, The task which
Demetrius had made his own was the topographical exegesis of
Homer. In that task, the first condition of success was the
correct determination of the site for Homeric Troy. On this
question, then, we may be quite certain that Demetrius brought
to bear all the resources of his shrewdness, his learning, and
his minute acquaintance with the native soil which he had
known from childhood. If he failed to fix the site of Troy
correctly, then his life-labour would be tainted by an irre-
mediable vice. All his computations of distance, all his esti-
mates of relative position for the minor localities of the Troad
would be stultified by the misplacement of their centre. Yet
Dr. Schliemann thinks that Demetrius deliberately chose a false
site for Troy, because, as a native of Scepsis, he was too jealous
of the neighbouring Greek Ilium to admit a claim which his
critical conscience secretly ratified. The view of Demetrius
was ‘suggested by vanity.’ ‘He envied Ilium the honour of
having been the metropolis of the Trojan kingdom.’ He was
actuated by ‘ mere jealousy and envy.’* I desire to speak with

1 Strabo 1. iii, § 17. of the Cretan μῦθοι: and many other
2 7. Vitt. vi, § 15. passages incidentally attest his pos-
8 Jd, vit. iii, 8 15. From another session of accurate knowledge founded
place, x. iii. ὃ 20, where he is quoted ΟἹ laborious researches,
regarding the worship of Crete, it 4 Troy and its Remains (1874), p. 41
appears that he had made a collection of English ed. (1875) ; Ilios, p. 168.

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM. 37

the greatest deference towards Dr. Schliemann; but I must
confess that this hypothesis appears to me one of the most
extraordinary that could be seriously advanced. There is
an English saying which contemplates the possibility of a
person cutting off his nose in order to spite his face ; and if
Demetrius indeed marred the central feature of his work for the
sole purpose of exciting these pangs in his neighbours, then the
town of Scepsis may claim to have produced the person who
in recorded history, has perhaps approached most nearly to that
ideal of self-sacrificing malice. In rejecting the pretensions
of the Ilians, Demetrius was so far from being singular, that,
as Strabo shows, he was supported by the general verdict of
competent ancient judges. Nor does the case stand as if
Scepsis was a possible claimant of honours to be alienated from
Thum ; for, wherever Homeric Troy might be placed, it could
never be identified with Scepsis. And, as if kind fortune had
meant to shield the Scepsian from this very charge, Strabo
chances to mention elsewhere that Demetrius had already
provided for the Homeric dignity of Scepsis in another way,
viz., by making it the royal seat of Aeneas (βασίλειον τοῦ
Αἰνείου), on the strength of its position relatively to Lyrnessus.?

Strabo rapidly glances at some of the arguments derivable
from the J/icd against the identification of the Greek Ilium
with Troy: but it is to be remarked that they are introduced in
connection with the current belief (νομίζεται), not in connection
with the name of Demetrius.» The Scepsian may have used

1 Strabo xi. ὃ ὅθ, Aeneas, pur- distance from Ilium was not greater,

sued by Achilles, flies to Lyrnessus.
Iliad xx. 189 7.

2 Strabo xm. ὃ 35. The arguments,
which are given merely as samples, not
in any wise as a complete statement of
the case, are all of the class which
assume the absolute topographical pre-
cision of the J/iad, and have no value
on any other view. They turn on these
points:—1. Position of Callicolone
relatively to Troy: Iliad xx. 53.
2. Post of the Lycians at Thymbra—
too far from the Greek Ilium: 7]. x.
430. 3. Position of the ἐρινεός : TZ.
vi. 433. 4. The onyés: Jl. rx. 354.
5, The ναύσταθμον near Sigeum : if the

why did not the Achaeans build a
τεῖχος sooner? 6. Why did Polites,
the σκοπός, station himself on the top
of the mound of Aesyetes—which is
but five stades from Ilum—when the
acropolis of Ilium itself would have
afforded a better view ?—Z1. 11. 792.

I must remark one very interesting
point in this passage of Strabo—the
parenthetical reference to a hint thrown
out by Aristotle. νεωστὶ γὰρ γεγονέναι
φησὶ τὸ τεῖχος, ἤ οὐδ᾽ ἐγένετο, ὃ δὲ
πλάσας ποιητὴς ἠφάνισεν, ὡς ᾿Αριστο-
τέλης φησίν: ‘for Homer says that
the wall (at the ships) was made only

at a late point in the siege (07 perhaps

38 HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

them ; but we have not Strabo’s warrant for aftirming that he
did. One of these arguments turns on the alleged insufficiency
of the distance between the Greek [lium and the place known
as the ‘station of the ships’ (ναύσταθμον) near Sigeum. After
stating this, Strabo adds: ‘And Demetrius cites as a witness
Hestiaea! of Alexandria, the writer on Homer's Jiiad; who
inquires whether the present city is that around which the war
was waged,—and with regard to the Trojan plain—placed by
the poet between the city and the sea—remarks that the plain
now seen before the city is a later growth of alluvial deposit
from the rivers. I entirely agree with Dr. Schliemann that the
learned Hestiaea’s view as to the later origin of the plain was
incorrect. Mr. Frank Calvert, in his dissertation on The Asiatic
Coast of the Hellespont, has shown that geological testimony
proves the sea to have been gaining on the land, rather than the
land on the sea, from a date far anterior to the beginning of
historical record. Dr. Schliemann is unquestionably right in
concluding that the [lian plain has undergone no considerable
change, save perhaps in its hydrography, since the Homeric age.
I may remark in passing that a very interesting parallel to the
theory of Hestiaea regarding the alluvial formation of the Ilan
plain is supplied by the remarks of Herodotus on the alluvial
extension of the Egyptian Delta. Herodotus, it will be remem-
bered, says that ‘any one with common sense’ can perceive that
the Delta, and indeed all Northern Egypt to a distance of three

it was never made at all, but the poet
who created destroyed it, as Aristotle
says’).

These words are not now extant in
Aristotle, but are conjecturally referred
to his ᾿Απορήματα Ὁμηρικά : see the
Berlin edition, p. 1506 b. 44, frag.
173.

The conception implied here—that
the details of the Z/iad may have been
fancy-born, without any corresponding
objective realities—is of peculiar in-
terest if it was entertained by such
a man, in an age of which the Homeric
creed set so decidedly in an opposite
sense.

1 Of Hestiaea, Fabricius says (after
noticing this passage): ‘ Citatur etiam

in scholiis minoribus γ΄ 64, et ab
Eustathio ad Iliad. γ΄. Neuter autem
ex his, ac ne Strabo quidem, Histiaeae
[sic] ipse scripta inspexit’: Bzblioth.
iin 5;

Harles adds (vol. i. p. 516): ‘In
schol. Marcianis [the Venetian scholia]
cod. B. et in cod. Lips. adducitur
Hestiaeae interpretatio Iliad. γ' 64,
cur Homerus Venerem vocarit awream :
Ἑστιαϊά φησιν [read Ἑστιαία φησὶν]
A γραμματική, ὅτι πέδιόν ἐστι [πεδίον
ἐστὶ] χρυσοῦν καλούμενον, ἐν ᾧ χρυσῆν
᾿Αφροδίτην τιμᾶσθαι, καὶ εἶναι οὕτως
χρυσῆς ᾿Αφροδίτης ἱερόν : additurque
Cleanthis expositio, ἐν Λέσβῳ οὕτω
τιμᾶσθαι χρυσὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην. Conf.
Olearii diss. de poetriis gr. nr. 38.’

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM. 39

days’ voyage above Lake Moeris, is ‘an acquired country, the
gift of the river,—having been either marsh or sea until the
Nile laid down a soil. The fact is that the soil of the Delta
coast-line rests on a bed of rock, which from a remote geological
epoch must have been above the level of the Mediterranean.
No sea-fossils have been found at a depth of forty feet in the
Delta. Just as on the north-coast of the Troad, the sea, not
the land, has been the invader along the whole line from
Canopus to Pelusium.

If a writer holds an uncommon or a solitary opinion, he is
usually mentioned by Strabo ; whose fairness, indeed, is scarcely
less remark»ble than his comprehensive learning. He draws a
clear line, for example, between a few subtleties of local identi-
fication, into which he declines to follow Demetrius, and those
broad positions—above all, his view regarding the site of Ilium
—on which he acknowledges him to speak as a master.1_ The
claim of the Ilians had at least one ally outside of their own
town; and Strabo does not withhold his name, though he very
properly indicates the value of his testimony. Hellanicus
maintained that the Greek site was the Trojan,—‘ favouring the
Ilians,’ adds Strabo, ‘as is the manner of his chronicle.’

Hellanicus (circ, 482-397? B.c.) was one of those λογογράφοι
who compiled local traditions. Dionysius of Halicarnassus has
clearly marked the characteristics of these compilers—whose
works were then extant—as distinguished from the more
properly ‘historical’ writers who came after them. (1) The
logographers treated the annals of cities or districts separately,

1 No one who wishes to appreciate
the real weight of Strabo’s adhesion to
Demetrius about Ilium ought to over-
look this point. Strabo shows, in fact,
the keenest feeling for the ludicrous
side of Homeric name-hunting in the
Troad. In Jliad τι. 857 we read,
᾿Αλύβης, ὅθεν apytpov ἐστὶ γενέθλη.
To account for this, the topographers
invented a place called ᾿Αργυρία between
Polichna and Palaiscepsis. Nay, says
Strabo, but where then is ᾿Αλύβη ἢ
‘They ought to have rubbed their fore-
heads, and made out that too, and not
left their work to go halting and open to

reproof, when they had once hardened
their hearts’: ἐχρῆν yap καὶ τοῦτο
πλάσαι παρατριψαμένους τὸ μέτωπον,
καὶ μὴ χωλὸν ἐᾶν καὶ ἕτοιμον πρὸς
ἔλεγχον ἅπαξ ἤδη ἀποτετολμηκόταςΞ.

If Demetrius sometimes errs on this
side, that cannot (Strabo justly remarks)
affect the weight of his main con-
clusions. τἄλλα δὲ ὑπολαμβάνομεν, ἢ
τά γε πλεῖστα, δεῖν προσέχειν ὡς ἀνδρὶ
ἐμπείρῳ καὶ ἐντοπίῳ, φροντίσαντί τε
τοσοῦτον περὶ τούτων, K.T.A. XIII. § 45.

2 His age is discussed in Miiller’s
Frag. Hist. 1. xxiv. f,

40 HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

without combining them into larger pictures—as Herodotus,
for example, combines them. (2) Their object was to publish
the records which the people of each place preserved either
(i.) orally, or (11.) in written documents, belonging (a) to the
temples, or (ὦ) to the archives of the State. (3) In publishing
these, the wont of the logographers was to give the records
‘such as they received them,’ ‘adding nothing, and taking
nothing away.’ Among those records ‘were also some myths
which had been matters of faith from a remote past, and some
theatrical episodes which appear exceedingly foolish to a later
age.’ This perfectly agrees with the account of Thucydides,
who characterises the logographers as compiling their works
with a view to popular effect rather than truth, and as dealing
largely with matters which could no longer be verified, having
passed into the region of fable.’

Among the numerous works of Hellanicus in this kind
(Βοιωτιακά, Θετταλικά, Λεσβικά, Φοινικικά, etc.), was a
compilation of the legends belonging to the Troad (Τρωϊκά).
The fragments suffice to show that, as might have been
expected, Hellanicus set down the local legends as he found
them. Thus he records an ‘oracle’ given to the Trojans
which directed them to abstain from ‘seafaring’ (ναυτιλία)
—manifestly the local apology for inactivity in that direction.
He is able to state that the mother of Priam was called
Trymo.* He mentions ΠΠολυάρχης as a name given to
Dardanus by the people of the place (οἱ ἐγχώριοι). Hellanicus
was a native of Mitylene in Lesbos, which had been the
earliest stronghold of Aeolic colonisation in those parts. In the
seventh century B.¢. Mityleneans are already established in the
Troad®; and Strabo tells us that the Trojan territory was taken

1 Dionys. de Thuc. ο. 5, ἕνα καὶ τὸν
αὐτὸν φυλάττοντες σκοπόν, boa διεσώ.-
Covto παρὰ τοῖς ἐπιχωρίοις μνῆμαι κατὰ
ἔθνη τε καὶ κατὰ πόλεις, εἴτ᾽ ἐν ἱεροῖς,
εἴτ᾽ ἐν βεβήλοις ἀποκείμεναι γραφαΐ,
ταύτας εἰς τὴν κοινὴν ἁπάντων γνῶσιν
᾿ξενεγκεῖν, οἵας παρέλαβον, μήτε προσ-
τιθέντες αὐταῖς τι, μήτε ἀφαιροῦντες, ἐν
αἷς καὶ μῦθοί τινες ἐνῆσαν ἀπὸ τοῦ
πολλοῦ πεπιστευμέναι χρόνου καὶ θεατρι-
καί τινες περιπέτειαι. πολὺ τὸ ἠλίθιον

ἔχειν τοῖς νῦν δοκοῦσαι.

2 ἐπὶ τὸ μυθῶδες ἐκνενικηκότα : Thue,
1.21,

3 Schol. on Jliad v. 64.

4 Schol. on Ziad m1. 250.

5 Schol. on Apoll. Rhod. τ. 916:
ταῦτα ἱστορεῖ Ἑλλάνικος ἐν πρώτῳ
Τρωϊκῶν. The second book is quoted
by Steph. Byz. s.v. ᾿Αγάμεια.

6 Strabo x11. ὃ 88; Her. v. 94.

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM. 41

away from the Mityleneans by the Athenians in the Pelopon-
nesian War. At the time when Hellanicus wrote, then, the
Aeolic Greeks of Ilium and the Troad were still, as they had
been from the first, in the closest relation with Mitylene. The
Mitylenean Hellanicus had more, therefore, than the common
motive of a logographer for adopting those local legends which
were flattering to the Ilians. It would indeed have been
astonishing if he had departed from his usual method of
work, for the purpose of arguing that his kinsmen had no title
to the honour on which the prestige of their town chiefly
depended.

Several passages show the value at which his evidence was
rated in such matters; it will be enough to take one of them.
Strabo, in his account of Aetolia, remarks that Homer names
Olenus and Pylené as Aetolian towns. Olenus, which stood
near the later. Pleuron, was demolished by the Aeolians; the
settlement at Pylené was transferred to a place further inland,
and received the new name of Proschion. Hellanicus had
written on the topography of Aetolia. ‘He mentions Olenus
and Pylené as if they still existed in their ancient condition ;
while he includes among the most ancient cities others which
were founded at a comparatively recent date,—Macunia and
Molucreia,—displaying the greatest carelessness in almost the
whole of his account.? Here then we have a measure for
the worth of his bare assertion that Aecolic Ilium was Homeric
Troy. But, as we have seen, Strabo, with all his extensive
and exact knowledge of the ‘literature relating to the Troad,
mentions no other writer besides Hellanicus as having supported
that theory.

I stated at the outset of this paper that its scope was limited
to examining the nature of ancient tradition and belief with
regard to the site of Homeric Troy. In conclusion, I may
briefly state the inferences which I draw from the. preceding
inquiry.

1. The belief: that Homeric Troy had been utterly destroyed,

1 Strabo Lc. § 39. ἐπιδεικνύμενος ἐν πάσῃ σχεδόν τι TH

2 Strabo σ΄ ii. § 6. Ἑλλάνικος δ᾽ οὐδ = γραφῇ. Cp. XI. tvil. ὃ 3. Sopater
τὴν περὶ ταύτας ἱστορίαν οἶδεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς mentions the Αἰγυπτιακά of Hellanicus
ἔτι καὶ αὐτῶν οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ ἀρχαίᾳ κατα as full of μυθικὰ καὶ πλασματικά.
στάσει μέμνηται... πλείστην εὐχέρειαν ‘ fables and fictions,’ Phot. cod, 161.

42 HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM.

and that the site had thenceforth remained desolate, formed an
essential part of the Trojan legend, not merely in popular Greek
rumour, but also in the view of those ancients whose treatment
of tradition was more critical.

2. The claim of the Aeolic Ilhum to occupy the site of the
Homeric Troy is not known to have been supported by any
writer, not an Ilian,! except Hellanicus, whose opinion on this
subject is worthless.

3. The Ilians, who pretended that Homeric Troy had been
only partially destroyed, poimted to monuments, arms, etc.,
which they claimed to have inherited from it. The authen-
ticity of such relics was acknowledged by Alexander when he
took the ‘sacred arms’ from the Ilian temple. His recognition
of the Ilian claim was wholesale and totally uncritical. The
subsequent Roman recognition was of the same character.

- 4, On the other hand, the general verdict of competent
ancient critics was decisively against this claim.

5. The ancient Greek discussion of the Homeric site pre-
supposed the strictly historical character and the minute
topographical accuracy of the Lliad.

6. The fact, therefore, of the prevailing ancient belief must
be distinguished from its value. If the arguments drawn from
the J/ ‘ad, against the site at Hissarlik were cone (which is
not the case), they would still prove nothing, unless we further
assumed that theory of the J/iad on which they depend.

7. The interest of the ancient belief, then, is principally
historical. It is distinctly adverse to Hissarlik; and this
should be frankly recognised, But it cannot detract from
any positive presumption in favour of Hissarlik which Dr.
Schliemann’s actual discoveries may have established. No
evidence for the ancient belief exists which could be set against
the evidence of the spade.

8. If, however, the ‘taking of Troy,’ as told by Greek
tradition, had a basis of historical fact, then it is improbable
on general grounds (as distinguished from mere details of

1 Polemon of Ilium (Πολέμων ’IAtevs),

who lived about 200 B.c., espoused the “

local tradition of his fellow townsmen
in their completeness. It was in his
Περιήγησις Ἰλίου that honourable
rhention was made of the still extant

stone on which Palamedes had given
lessons in the game of draughts. See
the fragment (preserved by Eustathius
on Jliad τι. 228) in Muller, Frag. Hist.
I. 125, 32.

HOMERIC AND HELLENIC ILIUM. 43

tradition) that the real siege was one which resulted merely in
the partial destruction of the town, without even breaking the
continuity of occupation. In this particular, then, the Greek
tradition affects one part of Dr. Schliemann’s hypothesis. Any
recognition of Homeric Troy’s historical prototype so far loses
intrinsic probability if it forbids us to suppose that the catas-
trophe was complete, and that its consequence, at least for a
time, was the desertion of the site.

R. C. JEBB.

1 One, at least, of Dr. Schliemann’s respect an advantage over the ‘burnt
prehistoric cities—that which he now city’ which he identifies with Troy.
denominates the ‘Second ’—has in this

44 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF SOUTHERN
AEOLIS.

Part I.—ON THE COURSE OF SOME ROADS IN THE PROVINCE
OF ASIA.

THE journey which Aelius Aristides made in the year 167 A.D.
from Smyrna to Pergamus, and which he relates with much
detail in the opening of the fifth book of his Hieroi Logoi, is
the most valuable evidence left as to the relative situation of
Smyrna, Larissa, Cyme, Myrina, and Gryneion: and a careful
study of it is the best foundation of a knowledge of Southern
Aeolis. The main facts are as follows (Arist. ed. Dind. i. p.
534). On the first day his baggage was sent on in front to
Myrina to be ready when he arrived in the evening. When
carriages had been got ready and he himself was prepared to
start, noon had arrived. In the great heat he did not like to
undergo the fatigue of travelling at this hour, and waited at
his house in the suburbs of Smyrna till the heat passed. The
comfort of his villa was seductive, and some matters of business
detained him, so that he lost a great deal of time, and when he
reached the khan before the Hermus, the sun was setting. He
deliberated whether he should spend the night there, but the
discomfort consequent on passing the night in a bad inn without
his baggage made him resolve to go on, As he was crossing the
Hermus, night had just set in, which shows that it was about
one hour after sunset. A cool wind invigorated him, and he
was glad on reaching Larissa, ἤδη βαθείας ἑσπέρας, that the
baggage was still in front, and that the inn was no better than
the previous one. A little after midnight he reached Cyme.
Every place was shut up, and he encouraged his followers, who
apparently were anxious to stop here, to go on. On the journey

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AKOLIS, 45

the cold became more severe. About cock-crow he reached
Myrina, and found his baggage in the street, as it had reached
the town after every place was shut. After in vain trying to
get admission to any inn, they at last were received into the
house of a friend. As they entered it was still quite dark, but
after a fire had been kindled the morning star had arisen, and
the light of day began to appear. He resolved, therefore, not
to go to sleep by day. His road then lay through Gryneion,
where he stayed some time to sacrifice to Apollo, to Elaea,
where he spent the night; but in these cases no indication is
given of the time required for the journey.

How far can we trace the several stages of this journey? It
lies almost exactly along the road which is still used from
Smyrna to Pergamus. The path is indeed marked out by
nature, and though it looks somewhat roundabout on a map,
it is in reality the easiest that can be made. The Roman road
from Smyrna to Pergamus was constructed by M’. Aquillius
Glabrio, who was sent to Asia in Bc, 129 to regulate the
province. He constructed a system of roads from Ephesus as
the centre of the province ; one led to Magnesia ad Maeandrum
and Tralles, another to Smyrna and Pergamus. Some of the
milestones on these roads have been discovered, giving the
distance from Ephesus. The fifth, on the road to Tralles, was
discovered last year in making some alterations in the station
at Azizieh, and now stands on the station platform close to its
original position.

MANISLAKYAALOXMANIOY
YEAT OX P= MALON
Ἐ

The Greek part of the inscription is interesting palaeo-
graphically, as showing the highly ornate form of letters used
at so early a period. Another stone from the same road, found
near Tralles, is published, C. J. 6. No. 2920. The copy is both

46 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

faulty and imperfect, so that neither Boeckh, Waddington (Fastes
des Prov. Asiat.), nor Rayet (Milet et le Golfe Latmique, i. p. 72)
were able to restore it; but the complete stone shows at once
the necessary corrections and additions—

MI. [AQVILLIVS MI. F]
C[O 5]

X| X]VIN|T]
ΜΑΝΙΠΟΣ AKTAAIOS
MANIOY ὙΠΑΤΟΣ
POMAION
KO

Then follow the. beginnings of five lines of a Latin inscription ;
this probably records a repairing of the road, as on a milestone
in the Smyrna valley are recorded five successive repairs of the
road to Sardis. .

Another milestone on the road from Ephesus to Tralles is
published by Lebas, No. 1652c., and more correctly in the
Smyrna Μουσεῖον, 1876-8, p. 48. The stone has not been
understood by Lebas. On one side is given the distance from
Ephesus, on the other side the distance from Aidin. Lebas
reads the former distance M A (1.0. M. XXX.) as XLI. and the
latter distance M B (2.c. M. II.) as XLII., and thus introduces .
utter confusion into the inscription. The former is dated under
Valerianus and Gallienus, the latter under Diocletian, Maximian,
Constantius, and Galerius; but by a curious error the name of
Constantius is given twice, in the first and in the third place.
We learn from this inscription that the whole distance from
Ephesus to Tralles was XXXII. miles. The distance by railway
is XXXIV. English miles. The distance is greater by railway
because the station for Ephesus is two miles further north than
the ancient city gate, the Magnesian. The ancient road crossed
from the Cayster valley to the Maeander by the same pass as
the railway, but afterwards it took a different and shorter course
through the city of Magnesia.

In the end of December, 1880, the Rev. S. S. Lewis of
Cambridge, and myself, saw another milestone close to Tralles,
about half a mile to the west of the modern town. It was
nearly dark when we examined it, and we could not read the
whole inscription. We left Aidin the next morning early, and.

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 47

I have not yet had the opportunity of examining the stone
again. It was the thirty-first milestone, the.two last lines
being—
ΙΜΡ XXII PP Cos \
MIAA

The whole road from Ephesus to Pergamus was repaired in
the sixth consulship of Vespasian, 4.D. 75. Two stones re-
cording this event, but not apparently marking the distance,
are published in the Μουσεῖον of the Evangelical School at
Smyrna, 1875-6, pp. 1, 2. They were found a short distance
south of Smyrna.

Observing these two kinds of milestones, we can by their
help trace the course of the road from Smyrna to Pergamus.
Near the probable site of Elaea the inscription on one of
Vespasian’s stones has been discovered and published in the
Μουσεῖον 1875-6, p. 14. The distance in the published copy
is IIH, 88 miles. This is certainly too short. In line 10 of
the published copy it is necessary to read ἀποδεδειγμένος τὸ ζ΄;
in copying, the Z of the stone has been mistaken for E. Now
according to the Peutinger Table (with a correction, of which I
shall speak below), the total distance of Elaea from Ephesus is
98 miles, and a suspicion arises that the symbol for 90 on the
stone has been misread. M. Fontrier, to whom the discovery
and publication of the stone is due, showed me the copy which
he had made in his note-book, and above the II he had placed
a mark of interrogation when making the copy, but had omitted
it in the published form.

The road went on beyond Pergamus to Adramyttion and the
Troad ; and one of the original stones found on the road between
Pergamus and the Atarneus is published in Curtius’ Beitrdge.
In that edition some mistake has been made, for the distance
is given as CXXXI., and PAA in the uncial text, but in the
cursive it is given doubtfully p(Aa ?). It is not obvious where
the fault lies: the number looks a little more than one would
expect. According to the Peutinger Table, Pergamus is 114
miles from Ephesus, and the place where the stone is said to
have been found seems on the map not much more than seven
miles beyond Pergamus.

These distances show that Lebas (Voy. Archéol., Inscr. As.

48 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

Min. No. 6) has made an error in saying that the road to
Pergamus went to Phocaea, and thence along the coast north-
wards. The distance would in that case be very much greater
than the assigned measurements. Moreover, no road would,
owing to the character of the country, run along the coast north
from Phocaea, as Lebas suggests. The road to Phocaea must
have branched off the main road at some point in the Hermus
valley. Strabo gives the distance as less than 200 stadia, 25
M.P., but this is too low an estimate; possibly the distance is
not meant to be measured along the road.

The same route that has been described is given in the
Peutinger Table, but it puts Temnos between Smyrna and
Cyme. I shall try afterwards to show that this must be a
mistake, and that Temnos could not have lain on the road. It
seems, therefore, certain (as might almost in fact be assumed
without proof) that Aristides, who had, as his account clearly
shows, no wish to diverge from the direct route, travelled by
the main Roman road from Smyrna to Pergamus. What
inferences can be drawn from his journey with regard to the
situation of the towns through which he passed?

It would help much if we knew the exact time’ when the
journey was made. It was in the summer (θέρους ὥρᾳ) when
the heat had lasted long enough to make Aristides weak and
ill. A careful perusal of the history of his thirteen years’
illness will, I think, show that the treatment prescribed in his
dreams by the gods Asclepios, Serapis, &c., is generally singularly
well adapted to his actual circumstances, and that in some cases
it can be used as evidence of local peculiarities. Hence it is
probable that the journey was made about the end of July or
beginning of August, when the relief from the heat is still far
off. Later than this, the very expectation of cooler weather
about September 10 has an invigorating effect. ‘Sunset on

1 A few pages further on Aristides
says that next year in the same month
he went to Cyzicus in the hieromenia
there ; but I have no means in Smyrna
of following up this clue to the exact
season. Canter, in his introduction,
argues that the festival was in honour
of Zeus Olympius, and was celebrated
in the great Temple of Cyzicus built

by Hadrian ; this temple he considers
to be the temple of Zeus. If this be
so, the festival would probably, like
the Olympia at Pisa, be celebrated in
the height of summer. The speech
which Aristides delivered at this fes-
tival is preserved, and may be found
in Dindorf’s Edition, vol. i.

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 49

August 1 takes place at 7 P.M., and sunrise at 5 A.M. Aristides
was an invalid, and would not hurry too much; moreover, he
had a considerable following with him (ὀχήματα ἐπορίζετο).
Hence I think it will be very near the truth if we say that he
travelled in daylight 4 Roman miles per hour, and in the night
3+. He can hardly have started from Smyrna earlier than
3.30 P.M., when the day is still at its hottest. We have then
the following times and distances—*

Distance | Leaves Smyrna 3.30 P.M. |

on Peutinger At the Khan 7 δ᾽ Distance from Smyrna 14 M.P.
Table. | Crosses the Hermus 8 | oy "Ξ Ἢ ἃ ἧς ἡ δὰ
At Larissa Oy400 45 py is “fp ἢ Sonia
33 Reaches Cyme 12.15 aM. Ἢ 5 rp 55, ΤΣ

Leaves Cyme την;
42 Reaches Myrina Srl bees 5 5 3 ADD

| First light 4 Fs

Read in this light, the journey is remarkably like what one
would tell of a journey at the present day. The stopping-
places, the khan and Larissa, are exactly the points where one
would find it convenient now to rest the horses. Close to the
low hill on which I shall try to show that Larissa was built,
there is still a little hut where travellers generally stop. In
the Hermus valley one great difference exists. The river is
apt to shift its course, and one can hardly reconcile the times
assigned if one supposes the river then had the course that it
now has, except at the expense of making the road deviate
from what seems the best and most natural route. Ten years
or so ago the Hermus changed its course in a single night, and
now the crossing is at a point about four miles west of its former
position. The old course is that given in Kiepert’s map, and is,
I believe, much the same as it was in the time of Aristides.
The present crossing is close to the railway, a mile before
Ulujak,? and my belief is that the khan stood here, about
four miles from the Hermus. It would then serve travellers
going either to Temnos and the towns in that part of the

observed till the whole calculations
had been made.

1 It would be tedious to give the
reasons which support each stage given ;

I have worked out the several steps
from actual experience, and I believe
that the account given cannot be far
wrong. The coincidence of the results
with the Peutinger distances was not

ἯΙ 5. —Vv OL: 11,

2 There are, of course, many other
crossings, but according to my concep-
tion of the course taken by the road,
it would pass not far from this point.

E

50 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

Hermus valley, or to Cyme. The former would naturally
follow Aquillius’s road to this point, and then go off towards
the north.

The present track to Pergamus does not go quite up to Cyme,
but turns off to the north across the lower part of the plateau,
a short distance before the sea. It does not touch the sea coast
till near Gryneion, but keeps a little way inland. Aquillius
naturally made the road lead through the important cities of
Cyme and Myrina, and at the same time secured for it an easier
_and more level course. I think engineers would now select
nearly the same course,

The distances which we must then assign are as follows :—

Smyrna XLIV. miles from Ephesus.!
Larissa about XXIV, milesfrom Smyrna LXVIJI, ,, ,, "
Cyme XXXIII. ; ᾿ ig LESVIL pt ah in
Myrina XLII, senrGe " LERRVI sheds iy
Gryneion XLYII,} * "ἢ ne XCI.? ΩΣ a9
Elaea LIV. sre Rg ACV EL Gah 1 ΗΝ
Pergamus ΤΧΧ, nH a of CXIV: io ΤῊΣ ἢν

Gryneion is not mentioned on the Peutinger Table, and
Strabo’s distances are quite different from those of the Table,
so that his account cannot be used. I suppose it to le nearly
halfway between Myrina and Elaea.

Strabo (XIII. p. 622) gives twe accounts of the distances
between Cyme, Myrina, Gryneion, and Elaea. The first is,

Cyme to Myrina 40 stadia 5 M.P.

Myrina ,, Gryneion 40 ,, δ.»
Gryneion ,, Elaea Δ ων» Bi! τς
Elaea », Pergamos 120 ,, us

The second he quotes from Artemidorus, who estimates the
distances as much greater, but seems to take them along the
coast line (ἐγκολπίζοντι). Only in one case does he state the
full distance, viz. from Gryneion to Elaea 70 stadia. He does
not mention the distance from Smyrna to Cyme, but that from
Cyme to Elaea is certainly below the truth, while the Peutinger
Table seems quite consistent with the map. Artemidorus, on
the other hand, is decidedly above the true measurement. So
far as my experience goes, the distances given by Strabo are

1 On this distance see below.

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. ol

generally a little short of the truth. This is the case with the
XL. stadia that he places between Sardis and the tombs of the
Lydian kings, and, I believe, with the XX. stadia between
Smyrna and the Παλαιὰ Πόλις. He places CCCXX. between
Ephesus and Smyrna, and as he mentions that the distance is
measured across by Metropolis, which is quite out of the direct
line and on the course of the road, it is evident that be ought
to agree with the measurement of the road. The question
arises whether that measurement can be determined,

A milestone is published by Lebas, /.c. No. 6; it was found
at Bournabat. The distance is some number between forty and
fifty. In discussing the inscription Lebas makes a curious error.
He thinks that the road from Ephesus passed Bournabat before
reaching Smyrna, and that the distance between the places is
about two miles. The road came straight north, passed on the
west side of Mt. Pagus, not on the east side like the modern
road and railway ; the reason being that the ancient city lay
more on the west side of Pagus than the modern. Bournabat
is 43 English miles in a straight line from Smyrna, and does
not even lie on the road from Smyrna to Pergamus. It must
have had a separate road, and the milestone in question has no
relation to those which certainly belong to the great’ road. It
mentions only the sixth consulship of Claudius (A.D. 37); and
perhaps we may conclude that the Roman road was first made
in that year. A bad country road must of course always have
existed. Now as Bournabat is about five Roman miles from
Smyrna, the distance of Smyrna from Ephesus cannot be more
than 44 miles. Strabo twice gives it as 40 miles, and the
Peutinger Table gives it as 34. The distance by railway to the
city of Ephesus (as distinguished from the railway station) is
50 English miles. The railway certainly traversed the same
pass into the Cayster valley that was followed by the Roman
road. That road passed through Metropolis according to both
Strabo and the Peutinger Table; and Metropolis has been
proved conclusively by M. Fontrier (Μουσεῖον, 1876-8) to lie
in this very pass, and not far from the railway. The railway
makes a considerable circuit between Metropolis and Smyrna ;
but it is not possible that the road could have been more than
seven or eight miles shorter than the railway. This would

make it about 44 Roman miles. We must then, as Lebas (J.c.)
E 2

52 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

suggested, correct the Peutinger Table to XXXXITII. The
reading on the milestone must therefore be restored as forty-
nine.

The main road constructed by Aquillius must be carefully
distinguished from the road between Smyrna and Sardis, on
which three milestones in the Smyrna valley are known. On
the sixth it is recorded that the road was made in the proconsul-
ship of Lollianus Gentianus, which Lebas places before the
time of Aurelius, and successively repaired in the reigns of
Septimius Severus, Aurelian, Diocletian, Constantine and
Valentinian I. (Lebas, No. 8). The distances were measured
from Smyrna. The second and eighth milestones are also
published by Lebas, Nos. 7 and 9. The second records only
the repairs. under Constantine, the eighth only the original
construction.

Lebas (No. 1724 f.) has published another milestone, said to
have been found at Menemen in the Hermus valley. It is also
published by M. Fontrier in the Μουσεῖον, 1875-6, p. 31, with
a difference of reading. I have examined the stone, and find
that M. Fontrier’s reading represents its present state. Under
the Greek text are the symbols

LA bf
The end of the Latin text, in very indistinct symbols, is

NoBht cA S§
MvIl

The writing throughout is very rude and irregular. Lebas
reads,
NOBILI[SSIJMIS
A[S]MIP
M. Fontrier reads

nobi(lissimis) n(ostris) Caes(ar-
ibus), S(myrna) M. VII.

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 53

The Greek text gives in full ἀπὸ Σμύρνης. There is no
trace on the stone to give the reading VIII. corresponding to
the Greek H; but the surface is worn, and now covered with
a coating of white paint.

Menemen is 191 miles from Smyrna by the railway; hence
the only explanation of the number on the stone seems to be
that the road which it marked led from Temnos and the middle
Hermus valley to the sea coast, and thence crossed to Smyrna
by water. Till the railway was made goods from the district
took this route, embarking at Menemen Scala. Eight miles is
not far from the actual distance to the sea.

The stone is dated between 292 and 305 a.D., when Diocletian,
Maximian, Constantius and Galerius were emperors. The road
must of course be older, and probably crossed the main road
near Ulujak, and about the spot where the Khan (καταγώγιον
πρὸ τοῦ "Epuov) was placed conjecturally ; it may have served
travellers on both roads.

Another road whose course is of much interest is one that
led from Ephesus to Sardis. This road crossed the mountains
by the pass of Karabel, in which are the two figures known as
the Sesostres. It is probable that the Roman road of the
empire took another course, but this pass is still used, and was
in use in the time of Herodotus. But it is certain that neither
the road from Smyrna to Sardis, nor that from Ephesus to
Phocaea could have gone through this pass, which is very far
from the proper track. Hence if these figures of Sesostris are
referred to by Herodotus (II. 106) in the well-known passage,
the only resource I can see is to alter the reading by transposing
the names Phocaea and Sardis. In that case it would be
necessary to look for another figure in the mountainous country
towards Phocaea. The Sesostris figure described by Herodotus
is the one near the ground in the Karabel Pass; his words do
not suit the other figure high up on the rock. Moreover the
two figures are so close to one another that it is impossible
any one could say they were on different roads, especially when
they are in a single mountain pass. If some such correction of
the text is not admitted, and if the two Karabel figures are
considered to be the two described by Herodotus, it seems
necessary to accuse the historian of a serious error in describing
what he had actually seen.

54 HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS.

P.S.—M. Fontrier has published, in the paper above quoted
on Metropolis, a milestone found near the site of the city.
It belongs to the road from Pergamus to Smyrna, but the
distance recorded was illegible. The distance was measured
ἀπὸ ᾿Εφέσου, and the stone belongs to the repair executed
under Diocletian and the three other emperors. This discovery
confirms the evidence of the Peutinger Table and of Strabo,
that the road passed through Metropolis.

The difference of number on the two sides of the milestone
trom Menemen may be explained, as in the case of the thirtieth
from Ephesus towards Tralles, by understanding the one side to
be according to the text ἀπὸ Σμύρνης M Θ, and the other
side to be the distance from Temnos. On the latter side, there
is no statement of the point whence the measurement. If,
according to the hypothesis proposed above, the road be under-
stood as that from Temnos to the quay opposite Smyrna, the
measurements would suit very well. The milestone near Tralles
gives in similar style on one side

ἀπὸ "Edéoov MAA
and on the other side simply M B.

W. M. Ramsay.

(To be continued).

BUST OF PERSEUS. δῦ

BUST OF PERSEUS. [Plate IX.]

THE bust here published was acquired by the British Museum
in 1879 fro ἃ Alessandro Castellani, but without an accompanying
record of where it had been found. The marble is Italian and
the workmanship Roman, or, as it is generally termed, Graeco-
Roman. In the type of head and in the features is to be traced
a powerful and pathetic original. The chin is aesthetically
large, the eyes and eyebrows are strained forward as if by
constant intensity of pathos, in contrast to the relaxation of
muscle produced by an equable mind. Doubtless the original
is to be sought in the schools of Praxiteles and Scopas; but in
the search for it allowance must be made for great differences.
In this marble the collar-bones and the strongly-marked muscles
of the neck are represented so as to aid the effect of the strain
on the neck rather than for the sake of truth to nature. The
object of the sculptor has been to produce a first impression, not
of form but of action. He has been regardless of form, now
exaggerating, as in the muscles of the neck, now reducing such
details as the right wing of the helmet to a condition of sub-
ordination which has a paltry effect. The feathers which cover
the helmet are from the hand of an ordinary workman. The
left wing has been made of a separate piece and let in, but is
now wanting.

It might be a question whether this head is not that of
Hermes rather than of Perseus. The fact of its having been
made to fit imto a term—as may be seen from the angle at
which the chest-bones project—would be in favour of Hermes,
while the winged cap would in its present condition equally suit
him. But there remain on the crown of it certain holes by
which some object has been attached. The winged cap of
Hermes has nothing there, while that of Perseus is incomplete

56 BUST OF PERSEUS.

without an eagle’s head rising from the crown (see the silver
coins of Philip V.), or at least the termination familiar in the
Phrygian cap. The whole cap or helmet being covered with
small feathers as if indicating the breast of a bird, it is evident
that the marble can only be correctly restored by following the
coins just referred to. It is the helmet of Hades with its
property of rendering the wearer invisible.

Then the expression of the face is too intense for Hermes.
It is more in character for a hero, and curiously enough the way
in which the head is set against the neck resembles strikingly
what is often to be seen in the heads of Medusa on Roman
gems, so much so indeed that a knowledge of these gems could
hardly fail to suggest an identification of the bust as that of
some one intimately associated with her. How she came to be
represented in this fashion on gems, has yet to be explained.
Possibly she was gradually assimilated in aspect to Perseus.
The height of the bust is 1 foot 3 inches. —

A. 5. Murray.

KYLIX WITH EXPLOITS OF THESEUS. 57

KYLIX WITH EXPLOITS OF THESEUS.

THE vase from which the designs on Plate X. are copied is a
Kylix, or shallow two-handled cup, 5 inches high by 12% inches
in diameter. It was acquired by the British Museum in 1850,
together with other objects included in the sale of the collection
of Dr, Emil Braun, who had procured it from the dealer
Basseggio: in the sale catalogue it is stated to have been found
at Vulci.

Notices of this vase have appeared in various works from time
to time; Dr. Braun himself exhibited it at the Roman Instituto
(Bulletino di Corr, Archeol. 1846, p. 106); Gerhard, in the
Archdol. Zeitung for 1846, p. 289, described it briefly ; and it is
included in the Catalogue of Vases in the British Museum,
No. 824, In publishing for the first time, so far as I am aware,
an engraving of this magnificent vase, it may be worth while to
add a more detailed description than has hitherto appeared.

The drawing is of the period which is known as that of the
finest red figure style, dating broadly between about B.c. 400
and B.c. 330. The best vases of this period are usually character-
ised by the introduction within the figures of faint red or brown
lines, which show up the minor details of muscle and tone down
the bolder outlines, adding a beautiful roundness and finish to
the workmanship. Being only laid on in light thin colours, these
inner markings are the first to disappear, and are on this account
only found in perfection on a few of the best preserved vases ; in
this vase only traces of these markings remain here and there,
part having faded away, part also having been overlaid with the
modern paint used in hiding fractures, and which is freely
bestowed over the design.?

1 On the bottom of the foot is a graffito incised, AY.

58 KYLIX WITH EXPLOITS OF THESEUS.

The subject here represented is that of the labours of Theseus,
one of which is shown within the circular medallion in the
interior, the rest being arranged around it in the interior, and
on the outside of the cup.

There is perhaps no subject more frequently dealt with in
Greek art than that of the history of Theseus: specially an
Athenian hero, he had as real an existence in Athenian eyes as
that of the best authenticated saint of mediaeval times: witness
the extraordinary honours paid to his bones when they were
so happily discovered by Kimon in Skyros and transported to
Athens: do not the pine trees still grow on the hill where Sinis
met his end and where Skiron’s victims were avenged? It is
true, in course of tradition, his great deeds became somewhat
entangled with those of the more remotely mythical Herakles
(because their missions were the same), so that his later
biographers took pains to analyse the myth, and separate what
they considered to be the historical evidence latent in the legend.
Theseus is essentially the typical conception of Athenian ephebeia :
his headdress marks him an athlete; ever young and graceful,
he accomplishes his toils with little or no effort ; unlike Herakles
in this, that his feats are the triumph of skill rather than of
brute force. Pausanias (I. xxxix. 3) says that, the inventor
of the art of wrestling, he overthrew Kerkyon not by bodily
strength, but by skill (σοφία) ; and on our vase he gets the
better of his opponent by a manoeuvre which every athlete
would appreciate. The type of Theseus as conceived in the
best age of Greek art is more remarkable for grace than for
muscular robustness, and it 15 in accordance with this concep-
tion that this hero not unfrequently appears with a feminine
headdress. Pausanias even relates an anecdote of his being
mistaken for a girl when he first entered Athens.!

The deeds of Theseus seem to divide themselves naturally
into two parts, the contests with Amazons, Centaurs and Pallant-
idae standing apart from the labours proper which took place
during his journey from Troezen to Athens, and with which is
included the subsequent destruction of the Minotaur—eight in
all, as they appear on the metopes of the so-called Theseion, and

11, 19, § 1. ofa δὲ χιτῶνα ἔχοντος ασίᾳ & τι δὴ παρθένος ἐν dpa γάμον
αὐτοῦ ποδήρη καὶ πεπλεγμένης ἐς EUmpe- πλανᾶται μόνη.
πές οἱ τῆς κόμης. .. ἤροντο σὺν χλευ-

ΝΞ ΎΣ:ς--Ξ-

KYLIX WITH EXPLOITS OF THESEUS. 59

according to the hero’s biographers. Of the known representations
of one or more of these labours on vases, Gurlitt! has collected as
many as twelve, and from his series it would appear that our
vase 15 the only one which pourtrays as many as seven scenes.

The introduction of paintings around the immer medallion in a
eup of this shape is very unusual; and oddly enough, the designs
are almost identically the same on the exterior and interior ;
a phenomenon in vase painting of which I do not remember
a single other instance, and which at first sight would appear to
show a want of originality in the artist inconsistent with Greek
ideas. So far as internal evidence of style and treatment goes,
it would seein that both friezes were the work of the same hand;
in that case it is ditticult to decide which is the first and which
the later work or copy. In some cases the exterior scenes seem
less forcible and more uncertain in execution than those of the
inside ; for instance, in the scene of the destruction of the sow
of Krommyon, the attitude of Phaia on the exterior lacks motive
as compared with the masterly attitude of her figure in the
duplicate scene. On the other hand, in the wrestling scene, the
right arm of Kerkyon on the interior would seem to have been
badly copied from the outside, where the motive is more certainly
shown. Again, it may be noticed that from the process of reversal,
two of the labours of Theseus on the inside, viz. the dragging of
Sinis to the pine top, and the taming of the bull, are etfected
with his left, whereas on the exterior he uses, as is more natural,
his right hand. It is possible that the artist may have painted
the groups on the exterior first, and then, having found that,
owing to the space taken up by the handles of the vase, the
action was somewhat cramped for want of room, chose to repeat
the same scenes on the interior, where the continuity of the
series would be uninterrupted ; the result being that the groups
on the interior plainly show a greater freedom and breadth of
treatment than those from which they were probably copied.
Plate X. represents the scenes of the interior only.

Admirably adapted as these groups would be for a series of
compositions such as one would expect on the metopes of a
temple, it is perhaps somewhat strange to find that the treat-
ment on the vase has in certain cases approached so near to,

1 Gurlitt, Das Alter der Bildwerke des Theseions, pp. 42-44.

60 KYLIX WITH EXPLOITS OF THESEUS.

without absolutely recalling the metopes of the so-called
Theseion. The attitude of the sow of Krommyon is indeed
exactly similar to that in the metope, but the action of Theseus
in that group is quite different from the design on the marble.
This scene, together with the groups of the bull and of Sinis
on the exterior of the cup, would seem to show that the artist
must have seen the marble groups, but had not them before his
eyes when designing this cup.

In one or two points, the treatment of the subject on this vase
seems to me to exhibit certain peculiarities worthy of remark ;
it will be convenient first of all to describe briefly the labours of
Theseus as they are here given.

1. In the interior, within a circle of the Maeander pattern, is
represented the contest of Theseus with the Minotaur: in
this, as in almost all the other scenes, the struggle is already
decided in favour of the hero; Theseus drags the helpless
monster from the palace by the left horn, and is .about to
despatch him with the sword of his father Aigeus, which ac-
companies him in all his labours; the palace is represented by
a fluted Doric column with its entablature and triglyphs, at the
side of which is a door jamb (?) decorated with a vertical band
of pattern, in which squares of a check pattern alternate with
Maeander or labyrinth squares; the latter, it is possible, may
have reference to the labyrinth in which the palace of the
Minotaur stood! The remaining scenes are represented on the
interior from left to right in the following order.

2, The punishment of Sinis Pityokamptes: Sinis is seated on
the top of a hill, and with right:and left foot against rocks, and
left arm round a tree, strives in vain to frustrate the purpose of
Theseus; his grasp of the tree already relaxes as the hero hauls
him with his left arm towards the end of the pine which he
holds in his right hand bent down for the robber: Sinis is bald
over the forehead and has shaggy hair and beard. At the
bottom of the hill is the rough outline of a tortoise, probably
inserted in error by the artist, who was perhaps thinking of
Skiron ; in any case such an attribute would not be wholly in-
correct, for according to Strabo (ix. p. 391) the hill of Sinis was the
same Skironian hill where the tortoise fed on Skiron’s victims. _

- 1 The same pattern occurs on the scene ofethis myth was laid.
coins of Gnossos in Krete, where the

KYLIX WITH EXPLOITS OF THESEUS. 61

Tradition seems to have been undecided by which of two
methods Sinis destroyed his victims. According to one story he
seems to have inveigled the unwary traveller to help him in
bending down the pine, and while both were holding the bent
top, the robber would let go, the result being that the traveller
was jerked over the tree and dashed to pieces. A less ingenious
but more certain method was to bind the victim by main force
to the tops of two pine trees already bent for the purpose: the
trees being then freed, the body was torn in two. The artist
has not plainly indicated which punishment Theseus adopts on
our vase ; probably the one tree is intended to suggest the other,
and Sinis will be fastened to both.

3. Contest with the sow of Krommyon: Theseus, holding up
his mantle for a shield, advances with his sword drawn against
the sow, which springs at him, rearing up on its hind legs; beside
the sow in the background stands Phaia, leaning forward and
extending both arms towards Theseus, her left hand resting on
a long staff; she wears a talaric chiton girt at the waist, her
face is wrinkled as that of an old woman, and her arms are
covered with hair; her hair is painted a yellowish white.

In all the scenes on both sides, Theseus as well as his
adversaries is represented nude; in this one scene only, the
contest with the sow, he has a chlamys, which he holds up for
a shield on his left arm. This peculiarity may justify my calling
attention to a fact which is perhaps after all only accidental, I
mean the striking resemblance of the figure of Theseus in this
group to one of the figures from the original marble group of
Harmodius and Aristogeiton, as we know it from extant
monuments, while the other figure in the same group seems
to have suggested the action of the hero in his contest with
Skiron as given in the interior of the cup; the podanipter in
this design taking the place of the sword in the marble group.

The female figure in this scene is usually set down as the
nymph of the locality where the action takes place; but
Plutarch tells another story: ‘Some say that Phaia was a robber
woman, bloody and wanton, who lived in Krommyon, but who
was called a sow on account of her character and life.’ The
representation on our vase may be intended to suggest no

1 See the Panathenaic amphora in Room, Pt. i. p. 18. Mon. Ined. di
the Brit. Mus. Guide to second Vase Corr, Arch. Rom. viii. 46.

62 KYLIX WITH EXPLOITS OF THESEUS.

more than the ordinary version; on the other hand, it seems
to me quite possible that the artist may rather have had in
view the version which Plutarch gives, that he has attempted to
show the combined nature of animal and woman, and that for this
reason he has shown both Phaia and the sow. In vase-painting
the transition from one condition to another is represented con-
ventionally by showing both forms of change together; as, for
instance, in many of the scenes relating to the capture of Thetis,
her power of transformation is indicated by the lon, or snake, or
flame, or all three, which are paimted as springing from her
human figure; and just as on a Basilicata vase in the British
Museum,! Iphigeneia at Aulis appears at the precise moment of
her transformation into a hind;°’ so here the two forms repre-
senting the same idea are put side by side; and it is curious to
note how similar are their attitudes; .the long body of Phaia
leaning forward with her arms outstretched composes naturally
with the lines of the rearing sow.

4, Contest with the wrestler Kerkyon ; Theseus grasping the
left upper arm of the robber with his right hand, with his left
seizes the right side of Kerkyon; he draws his opponent forward,
and himself leaning back slightly, prepares to throw the robber
backwards over his knees, by a feat in wrestling technically
known as the ‘ cross-buttock throw.’ The left arm of Kerkyon
is forced against the side of his opponent, so that he cannot
bend or release it; lis right hand probably clutches the left arm
of Theseus which is overturning him. Kerkyon is bald over
the forehead and has short curly hair and beard; he wears a
diadema.

5. On the right of this group is a spear placed in a slanting
position, as if leaning against a wall, upon which hangs over
the spear a club probably of metal, tapering towards the
handle. The introduction of this club and spear seems to
have no special meaning in connection with either of the scenes

1 Catalogue of Vases, No. 1428, en-
graved, Overbeck, AHeroische Bild-
werkc, xiv. 9.

2 Iphigeneia (Jph. in Tawris, 1. 28)
says that Artemis snatched her away,
leaving a hind in her place ; from ll. 6-8,
ibid. and a fragment of Euripides, ἔλαφον
δ᾽ ᾿Αχαιῶν χερσὶν ἐνθήσω...ἣν σφάξοντες

αὐχήσουσι σὴν σφάξειν θυγατέρα, we
gather that the Greeks still imagined
that they had sacrificed Iphigeneia ; to
their eyes, therefore, the maiden must
for the moment have appeared so like
the hind as to justify the idea of her
actual transformation.

KYLIX WITH EXPLOITS OF THESEUS. 63

between which they stand. The club was distinctly the weapon
of only one of the antagonists of Theseus ; and if we combine this
with the fact that all the eight Jabours are clearly depicted here
except the combat with Korynetes the club-wielder, it seems to
me extremely probable that the eighth contest is suggested by
these adjuncts; the spear standing for the hero (as on the Metope
he kills Korynetes with that weapon), and the-.club typifying his
adversary.

6. The overthrow of the robber Polypemon or Damastes,
surnamed Prokrustes. Already vanquished, he has been thrown
backwards upon his famous bed, and, half stunned, can do no
more than raise his hand helplessly for mercy. Theseus strides
forward to give him the death-blow, swinging above his head the
double-headed axe, pelekus, with which Prokrustes had fitted so
many victims to his bed. The bed as seen in perspective
is represented by a horizontal bar, the cross-bars of which are
‘represented by vertical lines which divide the horizontal bar
into equal spaces, and which rests upon two upright legs.
Prokrustes has a wrinkled face and a shock of long hair.

7. The death of Skiron. In an attitude similar to that of
Prokrustes in the last scene, Skiron has fallen backwards, and
feebly raises his right hand while he supports himself on his left ;
on the left Theseus brandishes in air the foot-pan, podanipter, in
the act of bringing it down upon the head of Skiron. The hill
on which this scene took place is indicated by an irregular mass
of rock on which Skiron has fallen, and on the top of which is
a stunted pine tree; at the foot is the tortoise, looking upward
with an air of expectation.

According to the legend this tortoise was fed by Skiron with
the corpses of his victims; that is to say, while the unwary
traveller was washing the robber’s feet he kicked him over the
precipice, food for the tortoise, or, as we should say, ‘ food for the
fishes’; for it is possible that the sea tortoise is put in here
merely as an emblem of the sea itself. Many authors who
describe this scene say that Skiron was thrown into the sea,
making no mention of the tortoise; Diodoros (iv. 59) says
λακτίσματι δὲ ἄφνω τύπτων περιεκύλιε κατὰ TOV κρημνῶν εἰς
θάλατταν κατὰ τὴν ὀνομαζομένην χελώνην. On a vase in the
British Museum (Cat. No. 824), and on another (Panofka, Zod des
Skiron, Taf. 1), the sea and tortoise are both shown below the

64 KYLIX WITH EXPLOITS OF THESEUS.

rock. The employment of a similar attribute for the seashore
itself is not unusual ; as, for example, the crab and fish below the
figures of Nereids from the Lycian monument, not to mention
the vexed question of the Olympian Niké by Paeonios, who
probably alights upon a tortoise.

The girls of Greece (Pollux. [X. 125) had a game which
has been thought to have a reference to this myth. One would
sit in the middle and be called χελώνη, her companions ran
round her, and they sang alternately :—

Χελὶ χελώνη τί ποιεῖς ἐν TO μέσω ;

Ἔρια μαρύομαι καὶ κρόκην Μιλησίαν.

Ὃ δ᾽ ἔκγονός σου, τί ποιῶν ἀπώλετο ;
Λευκᾶν ad’ ἵππων εἰς θάλασσαν ἅλατο--------

which white horses were by Panofka supposed to be the white
Skironian hills.

8. The capture of the bull of Marathon. Theseus, his right
foot pressed to obtain a fulcrum against a rock, draws back the
bull with his left hand by a cord tied around its horns, throwing
his weight upon its. back as it plunges forward ; the sudden jerk
back has brought it nearly on its haunches, with its head forced
up in air; in his right hand Theseus holds a knotted club.

The points of difference between the general character of the
outside and inside scenes are very slight. Theattitude of Phaia
and the minor point of Kerkyon have been already mentioned ;
on the exterior Phaia rests one hand on her staff and raises the
other with a deprecating gesture. The fact that there is no rock
below Sinis, and that a conical cap, pilos, is hung up behind the
figure of Kerkyon, completes the distinction, except that as each
scene on the exterior is exactly below the corresponding scene
on the interior, the order of the groups on the outside is neces-
sarily changed from right to left, and the relative position of the
figures is generally altered.

CEcIL SMITH,

1 Panofka, Zod des Skiron, note 12; but see Fouquitres, Les Jewx des Anciens,
Ῥ. 88.

VOTIVE ARMOUR AND ARMS. 65

VOTIVE ARMOUR AND ARMS.

THE custom of dedicating vr of specially setting apart articles
of use or ornament to divine beings has been common to many
peoples, and has come down from a remote antiquity to the
present day. Nor is the motive which prompts the action one
in any way foreign to the impulses by which men are moyed.
A danger escaped, a victory achieved, is not unnaturally believed
to be due, at all events in sume measure, to powers not of the
lower world, who can control aud even overrule the designs of
mortal men. In the temples, therefore, of the gods, and in
other places hallowed by the more immediate presence of the
divinity, it has been the habit to offer various things in recog-
nition of benefits already bestowed. or in the hope of favours to
be granted in the future. The pot of manna and Aaron’s rod
which budded laid up in the Tabernacle,! are as trite as are the
models which the same pious feeling still deposits in Christian
churches, in remembrance of shipwrecks escaped from or of
diseases cured; In no country was the custom more observed
than in Hellas, where it was usual to dedicate a tenth of the
spoil taken in war, and where at the yreat shrines so large were
the offerings, that many of the states had θησαυροί, in which
were preserved the almost innumerable votive objects dedicated
to the Gods. In Greece itself there was no place, not excepting
Delphi and Dodona, where more evidence of the observance of
the custom was to be found than at Olympia, and in the temple
where dwelt the cloud-compelling wielder of the lightning, the
mighty dispenser of victory, Zeus, the King of Gods and men.

1 Jn the later times of the Jewish παντὸς ἣν ἐν κύκλῳ πεπηγμένα σκῦλα
kingdom the practice was still kept up, βαρβαρικὰ καὶ ταῦτα πότα βασιλεὺς
for we read in the account of Herod’s Ἡρώδης ἀνέθηκε, προσθεὶς boa καὶ τῶν
new Temple at Jerusalem : τοῦ δὲ ἱεροῦ Ape Bwy €Aa8ev.—Josephus, xv. 11,

H. S.— VOL. II. Ἐ

66 VOTIVE ARMOUR AND ARMS.

Pausanias’ gives an account of some of the many offerings
which still remained at Olympia in his time, of which, among
the most noteworthy, may be mentioned the golden buckler on
the front of the temple, dedicated by the Lacedaemonians and
their allies from the spoil of the Argives, Athenians, and Jonians
after the battle of Tanagra. He also tells us,? and, on account
of the inscription, the fact is especially valuable, that at the
centre of the Altis, under the plane-trees, was the statue of an
athlete, carrying halteres, having the following inscription
engraved on the thigh :

Ζηνὶ θεῶν βασιλεῖ μ᾽ ἀκροθίνιον ἐνθάδ᾽ ἔθηκαν
Μενδαῖοι Σίπτην χερσὶ βιασσάμενοι.

Amongst the many and varied articles offered in the sacred
places, not the least common were weapons both of offence
and defence,’ and several of these have escaped the numerous
destructive agencies to which they have been subjected, and
have come down to our own time.

Before giving a description of the spear-head which forms the
principal subject of the present paper, or entering on the dis-
cussion of any question connected therewith, it may be useful to
bring together the scattered notices of such weapons as have
been discovered, which, on account of the inscriptions upon
them, have undoubtedly been dedicatory. Many of them have
been found on the site of Olympia or in the immediate
neighbourhood.

One of the most important of these inscribed votive weapons

1 Lib. v. cap. 10. shield, breastplate, and helmet to

ib το ΠΑΡ᾿ a7:

3 The Anthologia Graeca contains
numerous epigrams which relate to
offerings of arms. The second of
the Epigrammata dnathematica, by
Simonides, is as follows :

Téta τάδε πτολέμοιο πεπαυμένα δακρυό-
€VTOS

νηῷ ᾿Αθηναίης κεῖται ὑποῤῥόφια,
πολλάκι δὴ) στονύεντα κατὰ κλόνον ἐν

δαὶ φωτῶν

Περσῶν ἱππομάχων αἵματι λουσάμενα.

No. 81 1ecords the dedication of a

Ares; No. 84 of a shield to Zeus;
No. 85 and No. 86 are both dedi-
cations of armour; No. 91 speaks of
various pieces of armour taken from
the enemy and dedicated by different
soldiers to Ares; No. 97 contains the
dedication of a spear by one Alex-
andros, ‘‘the inscription on which
relates that it was dedicated to Artemis
after a war”; No. 124, No. 141, and
No. 264, all relate to dedications of
a shield.

VOTIVE ARMOUR AND ARMS. 67

is the helmet, now in the British Museum by the gift of
George IV.,4 which was discovered at Olympia itself in 1817.
It is imseribed on the upper part: BIAPON O AEINOME-
NEOZ KAI ΤΟΙ ZYPAKOZIOI TO! Al TYPAN ANO
KYMAZ; and tells its own story with sufficient plainness.
Hieron and the Syracusans defeated the fleet of the Etruscans
and their Carthaginian allies in a battle off Cumae, B.c. 474,
and we have therefore an exact date for the dedication. The
helmet itself, of markedly Etruscan shape, measures in the
inside 8% inches from back to front, Τὰ inches in width, and is
72? inches in height. Though it is thin in fabric, and has no
appearance of ever having had any lining, it has evidently
been in use. It was possibly one of several then dedicated,
or it may have formed part of a trophy, and we can scarcely
doubt that it was worn in the battle by one of the Etruscan
combatants. In this respect it differs from some of the
dedicatory weapons which have certainly never served any
other purpose than that of having been offered. Pausanias*
records another offering having a near connection with this, one
of three linen breastplates, made to Zeus at Olympia by Gelon,
brother of Hieron, and the Syracusans from Carthaginian
spoil.

Another helmet, also one which had been in use, is preserved
in the British Museum, from the Payne Knight collection.? It
was found in the Alpheios near Olympia in 1795, and was
procured there by Mr. Morritt of Rokeby, the friend and corre-
spondent of Sir Walter Scott, and author of Topography of Troy.
It is of purely Corinthian type, which accords with its having
been in its present form part of the actual spoil, and not merely
. fabricated from weapons then taken. Though the nasal is thick,
the rest of the helmet is of very thin material, and there is no
indication that it had ever been lined. It measures 103 inches
from the point of the nasal to the back, and its greatest width
is 84 inches, whilst the width for the head is just over 7 inches;
in consequence of its imperfect condition the original height
cannot be ascertained. At the back of the helmet, close to

1 Boeckh, tom. i. p. 34, No. 16; 2 Lib. vi. cap. 19.

Rose, Jnscript. Graecae, p. 66, tab. vill. 3 Boeckh, tom. i. p. 47, No. 29;
1 ; Horae Ferales, Ὁ. 169, Pl. xii. fig.1; Horae Ferales, p. 169, Pl. xii. fig. 3;
Palaeographical Society, Pl. vii. 770. Rose, Jnscript. Graecae, p. 59, tab, vii. 1.

2F

68 VOTIVE ARMOUR AND ARMS,

the edge, is a round hole, a quarter of an inch in diameter,
punched through, probably to affix it in the position it was
intended to occupy as a votive offering. It bears the following
inscription along the edge of the neck: T APF .. Ol
ΑΝΕΘΕΝ TO! AIFI TON ΦΟΡΙΝΘΟΘΕΝ. To what
particular event this refers it is perhaps impossible to ascertain.
In B.c. +60 Athens, Argos, and Megara were in alliance against
Corinth, and in B.C, 457 there were battles in the territory of
Megara, ending in the complete defeat of the Corinthians. It
1s possible that in one of these engagements the helmet became
a spoil to the Argives, and was then inscribed and dedicated.
The character of the letters coimcides perfectly with the date
suggested.

A third helmet has been discovered at Olympia,! and like the
last it was found in the bed of the Alpheios, on the right bank. It
came into the possession of Mr. Bartholomew Frere, who gave it
to the Bishop of Lincoln, in whose hands it still remains. The
inside measurements of this helmet, which is of Corinthian
form (see Plate XI.), are as follows: length about 84 inches,
width ΤῈ inches, height about 83 inches. Round the edge is
engraved a very delicate pattern. It is inscribed ZENOZ
OAYMMIO in very archaic letters (see plate). As in the case
of the two preceding helmets, it was therefore dedicated to Zeus,
but by whom or on what occasion that took place has not been
recorded upon it, though there can be little doubt’ it was after
soime success in war. There is a square hole at the back, which
has evidently been made intentionally, and is not the result of
decay of the metal, suggesting that it was affixed to some support
by means of a nail. It may therefore have formed the upper
part of a trophy, other parts of which were perhaps inscribed
move fully, and may have recorded the victory in commemoration
4 which the arms composing it were dedicated. Near the large
hole, alittle to one side is a very small hole which may have
been used in fixing the crest, a corresponding one having probably
been obliterated in making the larger hole. On the front part
ot the top of the helmet, on the oxidised surface, is an oblong
mark across it, 14 inches long, and + inch wide, possibly
produced by solder, and which may have been connected with

' Boeckh, tom. i. p. 48, No. 30; Rose, Jnservipt. Graecac, p. 58,Gtab, vi. 2,

VOTIVE ARMOUR AND AIiMs. OY

the fastening of the crest. It should be stated that the
ends of the cheek pieces have been turned up, evident!y in
ancient times.!

ἴ

ἵ ἶ ἱ , '
i

There is another bronze object which has been described as
a votive helmet. It is now preserved in the Fitzwilliam Museum
at Cambridge, and was discovered, if not at Olympia itself, at all
events in the near neighbourhood. Colonel Leake, who procured
it at Pyrgo, says” that though professedly found at Khaiatta,
he believes it came from Olympia. It is a lekythos or oil vase,
23 inches high, in the shape of a helmeted head of which the
eyeballs are pierced, though they must have been filled in with
silver or paste to enable the vase to be used. It has a short
neck with a wide rim, on which are engraved radiating flower
petals, with a short broad handle on which is a dolphin. The
bottom is now wanting, but was once fixed on by solder. In
general form this little vesse! resembles the still more diminutive
lekythoi of early painted pottery which have been found at

1 Another helmet very similar in the Bishop of Lincoln’s helmet, it has
workmanship is in the possession of probably been votive.
Messrs. Rollin and Feuardent. It 2 Travels in the Morea, vol. i. p. 47 ;
has a large round hole at the back, and Walpole, Travels, vol. ii. p. 597, No.

the ends of the cheek pieces have also 62; Boeckh, tom. i. p. 48, No. 81;
been turned up inancient times. Like Rose, Jnscript. Graecae, p. 20, tab. ii. 1,

70 VOTIVE ARMOUR AND ARMS.

Cameiros, and of which several are preserved in the British
Museum. In that museum may also be seen a number of bronze
vessels in the form of female heads, of Etruscan workmanship,
where the eyes are pierced, and the bottom, which is generally
wanting, has also been soldered on. It should be mentioned
that on each cheek piece a boar is very delicately engraved, in
this particular reminding us of two bronze helmets in the
British Museum. Over the forehead is inscribed in retrograde

letters of an early character, POIOL MAT OEZEN.!

It has been questioned whether any of the helmets, including
some uninscribed ones, found at Olympia had ever been in use
as defensive arms.” It is argued that they are so slight in fabric
that they would practically afford little or no protection in war,
and that they were ὅπλα πομπευτήρια, arms of ceremony rather
than weapons for the battle. We know that in the games
those who contended were sometimes equipped with a helmet
and other armour, and indeed it is possible that some of these
arms, of thin material and unsubstantial make, may have been
used in that way, but this will not hold true of all. We cannot,
for instance, regard the helmet dedicated by Hieron and the
Syracusans, or that again by the Argives, as being other than
actual spoil taken from an enemy after having been used in the
battle where the dedicator was victorious. And further it may
be remarked that though some helmets are thicker and stronger
than others, the greater number being quite thin except as

1 Under the N is a letter, possibly from left to right.

part of anO, which must have been there 2 Dodwell, Travels in Greece, vol. ii.
before the N was inscribed. Itisnot Ρ. 801.
improbable that this was the commence- 3 Pausanias, lib, vi. cap. 10.

ment of an inscription, intended to read

VOTIVE ARMOUR AND ARMS. 71

regards the nasal, it does not follow that the weaker ones
were not intended for use. Thin as they are, when further
strengthened by a lining of leather and by the crest, they might
be strong enough to turn the force of a blow and to serve as an
effectual defence for the wearer. In Britain several shields,
belonging to the age of bronze,! have been met with, which are
so thin that it would scarcely be supposed they could have
afforded any protection to the warrior, and yet in some instances
they show by the cuts upon them that they have been actually
in battle; and besides this no shield of that date has been
discovered which is of any stronger make.

To pass from the instruments of defensive to those of offen-
sive warfare. So faras I know, the only dedicatory weapons
which have occurred are spear-heads, and all of them, with the
exception of the subject of this paper, have certainly been
found at Olympia, whilst in all probability that also was
discovered at the same place. These, five in number, have
resulted from the late excavations there, so munificently under-
taken and carried out by the German Government, under the
able superintendence of Dr. Gustav Hirschfeld and Herr
Adolph Botticher.

The first was found January 21, 1876, a little to the south of
the south-west corner of the Temple of Zeus.? It is four-sided, and
has upon one of the faces this inscription: MEA@ANIOI ANO
AAKEAAIMONION (see plate). Methana was situated ona
promontory of the Argive peninsula adjoining to Troezene, and
but little is known of its history. To what war with Sparta,
a state infinitely surpassing it in power, this votive offering
refers, it would be in vain to conjecture. The dedication was
no doubt to Zeus, and, judging from the letters, it must have
taken place at a time antecedent to the Peloponnesian War.
This, like all the other dedicatory spear-heads which have been
discovered, has evidently been manufactured specially for the
purpose of being offered, and was never intended for a weapon
of war. The form is quite unlike that of the ordinary spear-
head, and without taking into consideration the fact that the

1 Horae Ferales, p. 166, Pl xi; No. 3; Ausgrabungen zu Olympia, 1.
Evans, Ancient Bronze Implements, Pl. xxi. fig. 8; The Inscription, Pl.
figs. 428-435. xxii.

2 Arch. Zeitung, vol. viii. p. 181,

72 VOTIVE ARMOUR AND ARMS.

point is not a sharp one, but is more or less rounded, it
is itself of a shape not so well calculated for offence as
those which have a broader and thinner blade. At the same
time it is admirably constructed for bearing upon it an
inscription,

A second, in form much lke the last mentioned, was found,
June 7, 1879, at the northern part of the Prytaneum,! It is
inscribed upon three of the four faces of the blade as follows :
ZKYAA AMO ΘΟΥΡΙΟΝ TAPANTINO! ANE@EKAN
All OAYMNIO! AEKATAN. In this case the dedication
to Zeus is expressly stated. The time also when it was offered
can be fixed in one direction with absolute precision, for this
could not have taken place before B.c. 443, in which year
Thurium was founded. It was probably dedicated not many
years atter that time, when Tarentum undertook a war against
the Thurians on account of the endeavour of the latter state
to possess itself of the district of the Siritis.

A third, imperfect at each end, was found February 9, 1878,
at the north-east corner of the Byzantine wall.2 Though in
general form like the two just noticed, it differs from them to
some extent in the socket, and also in the way in which the
socket joins the blade. It is inscribed, the letters running from
point to base, with ZIKYON, in very archaic characters, and the
word is preceded by a straight line. In the opinion of Herr
A. Kirchhott the letters are of Corinthian or Achaean form, and
he thinks that it was dedicated by some one who had taken
it as spoil from Sicyon. The probability, however, is that it was
a Sicyonic dedication, and that it records a victory of that state
rather than a defeat.

Two others have been found at Olympia. One, February 4,
1879, at the south-west corner of the Prytaneum, the other,
March 4, 1879, within the Prytaneum. Both are imperfect,
having the remains of an inscription upon the blade in each
case, and in form they are like those already described. The
first? has... 2 OAYMPIOY upon it, written from the point
towards the socket, in letters, according to Herr A. Kirchhoff,
of Corinthian form. The Σ is probably the last letter of Διός,

1 Arch. Zeitwng, vol. xii. p. 149, 181, Pl. 18, 4,; Ausgrabungen zu
No. 299. Olympia, III. (1877-78), Pl. xxv. 1.
1 Arch, Zeitung, vol. xi. p. 140, No. 2. Arch. Zeitung, xii. p. 160, No. 310.

VOTIVE ARMOUR AND ARMS. 73

and the spear was certainly dedicated to Zeus, The other,
which is much oxidised, the point also being wanting, has very
little left of the inscription, the letters HAE ..... Z2TQ...
alone remaining. In this case also it is impossible to decide
anything with regard to the people or person who dedicated it,
nor can anything be gathered from the few remaining letters as
to the deity to whom it was offered. From the form of the
letters and the use of H and © it would appear to be of a
somewhat later date than the other four found at Olympia.

It has been suggested to me by Mr. A. W. Franks, that these
square-sided objects are not the blades but the butt ends of
spears, the iron heads of which have disappeared through the
decay of the metal, and that they were not, therefore, merely
votive, but had formed a portion of spears which had been
actually used in war. There can be no doubt that they would
serve such a purpose, and indeed they are not unlike some of
the butt ends which are represented on vases,” and to some
actual ovpiayot which have been preserved down to the present
day. Nor is it at all unlikely, or contrary to experience, that
whilst the head of a spear should be made of iron, the other
end should be made of bronze; and, in fact, spears so con-
structed, and belonging to the Early Iron Age, have been
discovered in Ireland. It has further been suggested that as
the spears would probably be suspended in the temple, and in
an upright position, the butt end was the part nearest to the
eye, and therefore the best fitted to bear the inscription.
Plausible as these suggestions are, the probability on the whole
is, 1 think, in favour of these bronze instruments having been
the heads of spears. It does not seem likely that when a weapon
was to be dedicated the less noble part of it should be selected
to carry the inscription. The fact also of certainly five and
probably six of these objects having been found at the same
place, all made on the same model, even in their minute details,
appears to be in favour of their being votive spear-heads rather
than actual spear-butts. For had they been the latter they
must have been parts of weapons for use, and it is not probable
that fabricated, as in this case they must have been, and as the
inscriptions upon some of them show, in places widely distant

1 Arch. Zeitung, xii. p. 164, No. 325. of Hellenic Studies, has a butt of this
2 A spear, engraved in the Jowrnal form, vol. i. Pl. vi.

74 VOTIVE ARMOUR AND ARMS.

from each other, they should have been as identical as they
are in form and construction. Whilst on the other hand their
identity of form, which to a great extent implies their having
been made at one and the same place, is quite consistent with
their being the heads of spears, not, indeed, of those made for
use in war, but for the purpose of being dedicated as represen-
tative and votive offerings. Their decorative features also are
applied in a way which suggests that they were intended to be
viewed from below and not from above, and the form, therefore,
is one more suitable for the head of a spear than for the butt.

If it is granted that they are the heads of spears, the metal
of which they are composed has an important bearing upon the
question whether they were intended for use or were made
specially for the purpose of being dedicated. It is certain that
at the time to which they belong, one not earlier than the first
quarter of the fifth century B.c., bronze, as a material for
offensive weapons, had, to a great extent, if not altogether,
passed out of use in Greece, and had been superseded by iron.
The question, however, of the time when the use of bronze
was discontinued, is one of much difficulty, and the evidence
we possess is neither sufficiently abundant nor is it exact enough
to admit of anything like a positive conclusion being arrived
at. And indeed, as has been the case in all transitions from
the use of one material to another, we must suppose that there
was a period, and possibly a lengthened one, when the two
metals, bronze and iron, overlapped each other and remained in
use side by side, until at length the more serviceable, as it was
also the more abundant and therefore cheaper material, dis-
placed the other. A similar overlapping had certainly occurred
in older days in the case of stone and bronze, of which there is
authentic testimony in abundance.

It will not be necessary here to enter upon a discussion as to
the origin of the manufacture of bronze or iron, or of the
country in which either of these metals may have been first
discovered and utilized. It may, however, be briefly stated that
these discoveries took place somewhere in Asia, and from thence
travelled westward under the influence of the civilizations
which founded empires and distributed arts and manufactures
at a period infinitely before that to which these dedicatory
weapons belonged.

VOTIVE ARMOUR AND ARMS. 75

There are two questions, however, which, having an important
reference to the subject of this paper, it may be advisable
shortly to consider: the time, namely, when iron was introduced
into the countries occupied by the Hellenic people, and that
when the earlier known metal, bronze, became entirely disused
by them for offensive purposes. The period represented by
the Homeric poems cannot be placed later than the ninth
century B.Cc., if, indeed, it be not somewhat earlier. At that
time it is evident that iron, although in use, had not been
known for very long, and we may therefore assume that epoch
to have been, more or less, synchronous with the introduction
of iron among the Hellenes. It is in the poems in question
always spoken of as being more valuable than bronze, which
appears to have been then the commoner metal, as it naturally
would be in consequence of the accumulation which must have
gone on during many preceding ages. Still, though of com-
paratively late introduction, its properties appears to have been
well known, for in the Odyssey,! Homer, in relating the putting
out the eye of Polyphemus, uses the following simile—

« isa» .9 \ \ » / SN /
ὡς δ᾽ ὅτ ἀνὴρ χαλκεὺς πέλεκυν μεγᾶν NE TKETTAPVOY
> ¢/ A ᾿ / »
εἰν ὕδατι ψυχρῷ βάπτῃ μεγάλα ἴαχοντα,
φαρμάσσων'᾽ τὸ γὰρ αὖτε σιδήρου γε κράτος ἐστίν.

Now in the case of a metal of which ores are so abundant and
so generally diffused as are those of iron, it can scarcely be
conceived that, when once people became able to smelt and
manufacture it, and when its usefulness in various ways was
understood, it should not have come quickly into ordinary, if
not exclusive, use. Upon the ground then simply of develop-
ment—and the force of this argument is not lessened when we
are dealing with a people so intellectual and practical as were
the Greeks—we cannot doubt that iron became the ordinary
material for arms of offence at no long interval after the period
represented by Homer. That in the time of Pindar (and
Anacreon, an earlier poet, witnesses to the same) iron was
the metal in use for weapons is clear from his employing such
a term as ‘iron war,’ and speaking of a country being destroyed
by ‘fire and iron,’ as we should talk of fire and sword. At the

1 ix. 391.

76 VOTIVE ARMOUR AND ARMS.

same time he writes as if bronze was still in use, though
possibly it may be by poetic licence, for he speaks of bronze
spears and calls them brazen-cheeked, and tells of limbs
wounded with bronze, and of bronze axes.

Herodotus also in his relation of the death of Cyrus, B.c. 528,
by the Massagetae, says they pointed their spears and tipped
their arrows with bronze, and used axes of the same metal, iron
not being found in their country.’ This seems to imply that it
was in his experience an unusual occurrence, and that iron
was in ordinary use for such purposes in his own country.
The evidence afforded by the paintings on vases, where swords
and other weapons are frequently depicted, appears to show
that about B.c. 500, and even later, the bronze sword was still
employed. It is, perhaps, not possible to say with certainty
that the leaf-shaped sword represented in these pictures was
made of bronze, but the probability is strongly in favour of
that being the case. The form is not one to which iron
naturally adapts itself, and though, on the first introduction of
the metal, swords were fashioned for a short time on the older
bronze model, that very soon passed away, and the sword
assumed a shape more consistent with the metal of which
it was made. It is also possible that the swords in these
pictures may be somewhat conventionally represented after an
earlier pattern, the scenes themselves being mythological and
heroic.

It may, I think, then be confidently assumed that in the
early years of the fifth century B.C. iron had become the ordinary
metal for offensive weapons, though it is possible that some
made of the older bronze may have continued in use. But
granting this, it appears to be scarcely likely that spear-heads
of bronze for purposes of war should have been so numerous
at that period that five or six should have been discovered on
the site of a single temple, and which themselves could only
have constituted a very small part of those once dedicated
there.

Having in these prefatory remarks given a brief account of
other and, in some particulars, similar objects, and taken note
of one or two questions connected with them, I now come to

* Lib, i. cap. 215.

VOTIVE ARMOUR AND ARMS. 77

the consideration of the spear-head which it is the purpose of
the present paper to describe and illustrate. (Plate XI.)

I have been unable to trace it further than to Athens, and
into the hands of a Greek whose account is that it was found
in the Peloponnesus. From him it was obtained, during the
summer of 1880, by Messrs. Rollin and Feuardent, the well-
known and eminent dealers of Paris and London. Though I
fear it is quite impossible to ascertain with any certainty the
place of its finding. I have no doubt, and my reason for this
opinion will appear in the sequel, that it was discovered at
Olympia. If this be true, it suggests itself at once that it was
found during the course of the late excavations; but I am
inclined to believe, on account of its general appearance, and
more especially from the nature of the patina upon it, that
it has not been disinterred so lately, but that some years may
have passed since it first came to light.

It is 11} inches long, of which what must be denominated
the blade occupies 74 inches. The hollow of the socket, which
is ᾧ in. wide, extends to a distance of 9} inches into the body
of the weapon. The metal of which it is composed is bronze,
but the exact nature of its composition cannot be stated, as it
has not been analysed. It is now coated with a thin, dark-
coloured patina, having upon it, here and there, patches of
oxide of a light green colour. The socket, which has no rivet
holes, is round at its extremity for the space of an inch, and
then becomes dodecagonal up to the base of the blade, where
three raised and rounded bands, a larger between two smaller
ones, encircle it and form the division between the blade and
socket. The blade is four-sided, gradually tapering and
terminating at one end in a blunt point, and at the other
passing, after a very graceful fashion, from the square into the
round by being chamfered and forming four leaves, the leaf-like
appearance of the chamfer being caused by continuing the
angles of the blade down as far as the surrounding bands at
the base. In form it corresponds very closely with those lately
discovered at Olympia, and indeed so much alike are some of
them that at first sight it might be thought that they had been
cast in the same mould; a closer inspection. however, shows
minute differences. It is inscribed on three of the four faces
of the blade, the words being written fron: base to point, and

78 VOTIVE ARMOUR AND ARMS.

before each word is a straight line the width of the face on
which it is placed. The letters have not been engraved, but
made by the application of a narrow-faced punch.

The inscription, ©eddopos ἀνέθεκε βασιλεῖ, easy of solution
as it is in some particulars, is in other respects obscure.
With regard to Theodoros, who he was, and upon what
occasion he dedicated the spear, it is impossible even
to offer a suggestion. The name is by no means an
uncommon one, and there is nothing connected with any
person of the name known in history to enable us to
fix upon him as the dedicator. With reference to the
occasion there is absolutely nothing to afford any clue to a
solution.

It will have been observed that in all the cases of dedicatory
weapons already referred to, where the inscription is sufficiently
preserved to admit of its being read in its entirety, they
have been dedicated by States. It may be said that Hieron
dedicates the helmet from Cumae, but it is as ruler of
Syracuse, and indeed in conjunction with the Syracusans, that
he does so. This spear-head, however, is an offering from
a private individual, made most probably in recognition of
some personal success or deliverance from danger in war.
Such dedications we know were sufficiently frequent, but
it is interesting to have the actual offering itself handed
down to us.

The word βασιλεύς in connection with the inscription offers
a subject of inquiry which, though it is important, is one not
difficult to solve. That Zeus is the βασιλεύς to whom the
spear-head was dedicated scarcely admits of a doubt. In the
first place dedications to Zeus are, on the whole, more common
than are those to any other divinity, and especially of such
offerings as are connected with war and victory. But there is
more positive evidence. Though it occurs in connection with
other deities, as for instance Apollo, Asklepios, Herakles, &c.,
the word is found applied to Zeus so frequently that it is certain
it was an appellation as common as it is descriptive. No
more natural appellation, indeed, can be conceived of the
great head of the hierarchy of the Hellenic religion, πατὴρ
ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε, the ἄναξ ἀνάκτων and θεῶν ὕπατος καὶ
ἄριστος, than βασιλεύς. And, as might be expected, the

VOTIVE ARMOUR AND ARMS. 79

corresponding Bacvdis is found in connection with Hera.) It
may be well, however, to cite some instances of the occur-
rence, inasmuch as it does not appear that the term has been
generally recognized as one commonly applied to the ruler of
Olympus.

An inscription on a slab of marble which has the word
βασιλεύς, without anything, however, in addition to identify
the divinity intended, has been discovered on the Akropolis at
Athens. It reads Σοφοκλῆς βασιλεῖ ἀ(νέθηκεν), and Rangabé,
no doubt correctly, attributes it to Zeus.?

Boeckh® has an inscription from a marble found in the Island
of Paros, where a priest is thus described : Σωσθένης Προσθένου
ὁ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ βασιλέως. And at Lebadeia, as we learn
from Pausanias,* there was a temple of Zeus, who was designated
βασιλεύς. He writes, Ἀναβᾶσι δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ μαντεῖον, καὶ αὐτόθεν
ἰοῦσιν ἐς τὸ πρόσω τοῦ ὄρους, Κόρης ἐστὶ καλουμένη θήρα καὶ
Διὸς βασιλέως ναός ; and a little further on, θύει γὰρ δὴ ὁ
κατιὼν αὐτῷ τε τῷ Τροφωνίῳ .. . καὶ Διὶ ἐπίκλησιν βασιλεῖ,
At Lebadeia itself, now Livadhia, Colonel Leake® found and
copied an inscription which unquestionably has reference to
Zeus, though on account of the imperfect condition of the
marble the name of the god is now wanting. It reads, Νέων
Βάσκω(νος) aywvobetei(cas) τὰ βασίλεια τὸ ἐλεοχρίσ(ιον)
ἀνέθεικε τοὶ (Avi) tot βασιλεῖ... πόλι. In connection
with the worship of Zeus Basileus at Lebadeia Plutarch® tells
a melancholy story, the result of Straton of Orchomenos falling
in love with a beautiful girl, Aristocleia of Haliartos, whom he
saw bathing at the fountain Hercyna, ἔμελλε yap τῷ Διὶ
τῷ βασιλεῖ κανηφορεῖν.

The appellation as distinguishing Zeus is not met with in
Homer, who uses ἄναξ in this sense, with reference, however, to
Apollo, but it occurs in the Theogonia of Hesiod :7

Ζεὺς δὲ θεῶν βασιλεὺς πρώτην ἄλοχον θέτο Μῆτιν
Πλεῖστα θεῶν εἰδυῖαν ἰδὲ θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων.

1 Boeckh, Corp. Inser. Graec. No. + Lib. ix. cap. 39.

1608, 4004, 4367/7. 5 Travels in Northern Greece, vol. 11.
2 Antiquités Helléniques, vol. ii. p. Ρ. 180.

731, No. 1032. 6 Aimatoriae Narrationes, Opera, Ed.

3 Corp. Inscr. Graec. vol. ii. p. 847, Oxon. 1797, vol. iv. p. 95.
No. 2385. 7 Line 886.

80 VOTIVE ARMOUR AND ARMS.

In the Fraymenta of Orpheus the same term is applied to
the God :?

Ζεὺς βασιλεὺς Ζεὺς αὐτὸς ἁπάντων ἀρχιγένεθλος.

As, indeed, we might expect, Zeus is several times addressed as
Basileus in Pindar. Thus in Olympic, Carmen vu:

ἔνθα ποτὲ βρέχε θεῶν βασιλεὺς ὁ μέγας χρυσέαις
νιφάδεσσι πόλιν.

And again in Jsthmia, Carmen vil. :

Ν ov Ὁ ΄ , ’ /
πατρὸς οὕνεκα δίδυμαι γένοντο θύγατρες Ἄσωπίδων
ὁπλόταται, Ζηνί τε ἅδον βασιλεῖ.

Aristophanes twice in the Nubes and again in the Vespae
apostrophizes Zeus :

ὦ Zed βασιλεῦ!
And in the Lance :

ᾧ Ζεῦ βασιλεῦ TO χρῆμα τῶν κόπων ὅσον!

Hippocrates also in his Εἰ ρίβϑέοία ad Damagetuin :*

& Zed Bacired, φημι, εὐκαίρως ye ἀντιγράφεις πρὸς THY πόλιν.

Other passages might be adduced from the Agamemnon® and
Persac* of Aeschylos, and from the Anabasis of Xenophon,° but
enough has been done to show that the term βασιλεύς as
applied to Zeus was not unfrequently used by poets and other
writers, and that too at an early time, earlier indeed in some
instances than the probable date of the spear-head. That date
cannot, I think, be placed after the middle of the fifth century
B.C,, taking into consideration the form of the letters, as well as
the use of O and E instead of the later Q and H, and it may
perhaps claim to be referred to the first quarter of the same
century if not quite to its commencement. The letters do not
emphatically point to any particular locality for the place of
manufacture, and so far as they are concerned the spear-head

1 Ed. Lipsiae, 1805, p. 457. 4 Line 532.
3. Ed. Paris 1679, p. 20. 5 Liber vi. cap. 1
* Ed. Dindorf, 1. 355.

VOTIVE ARMOUR AND ARMS. 81

may have been inscribed in any part of the Peloponnesus or in
Phokis, Argolis, or Boeotia. With regard to the place where
the spear-head was offered, if the dedication to Zeus, which may
perhaps be taken for granted, be admitted, the probability is
very strong that it was an offering made to that deity in his
world-renowned temple at Olympia. This probability becomes
almost a certainty when it is compared with those which are
known to have been found there, and with which in shape and
style of manufacture it is so identical. From the consideration
of this similarity a further question arises. Were not all these
dedicatory spear-heads made at the same place and by the same
school of artificers? It may, indeed, be conceived that articles
intended for use might be made, as regards their general form,
much alike in different places, on account of a common purpose
or requirement, yet when objects, as in the case of the spear-
heads, are met with almost counterparts of one another, except
in the inscriptions upon them, the presumption is very strong
that they come from the same workshop. Nor is it difficult to
fix upon the place where they were probably manufactured. It
may confidently be inferred, though there is no direct evidence
to prove it, that, where offerings were frequently being made, a
stock of such articles as were likely to be required should be
kept in hand by the officials in connection with the temple
where it was intended to dedicate them. In this way the
convenience of the person dedicating and the profit of the
temple would equally be consulted. We may therefore suppose
that Theodoros bought the spear-head at Olympia, and had the
inscription engraved upon it at the same time and place. It
may be objected that the fact of one of the spear-heads having
been dedicated by the Tarentines from Thurian spoil is incon-
sistent with this view. But to this it may be replied that some
of the captured arms were brought to Olympia and there recast
into a new form, and one more suitable to the votive purpose
they were intended to serve. That such a process was by no
means unfrequent we learn from the account given by Pausanias
of many of the articles dedicated at Olympia and Delphi.
Among these there was none more noteworthy, on account of
the occasion on which it was offered, than the golden tripod
supported on the bronze stand of twisted serpents given to
Apollo by the Greeks after the victory at Plataea. The stand,
H. S.— VOL, II. G

82 VOTIVE ARMOUR AND ARMS.

mutilated, but still retaining upon it the names of the several
dedicating States, still remains in the Hippodrome at Constan-
tinople, to which it was removed from Delphi by Constantine,
the most glorious ἀνάθημα in existence.

W. GREENWELL.

On the vases of terra cotta in the form of a helmeted head
of which Canon Greenwell writes (pp. 69—70), a new light is
cast by a paper by M. Léon Heuzey which has just appeared
in the Gazette Archéologique (1880, No. 5, pp. 145-164).
M. Heuzey engraves a specimen from Cos which closely re-
sembles those from Rhodes in the British Museum, and a still
more interesting specimen which has reached the Louvre from
Corinth. This latter is made not of terra cotta but of Egyptian
porcelain, and on it is painted the cartouche of the Egyptian
King called by the Greeks Apries, who ruled B.c. 599—569. It
is, however, probable that the place of its manufacture was not
Egypt but Phoenicia, whence it made its way to Corinth. That
it should date from the beginning of the sixth century is just
what we should, on grounds of style, have judged to be probable.
It is at once evident that this little vase gives us very important
evidence as to the origin and date of the whole class to which
it belongs.

Ρ, α.

STAIRS TO PANDROSEUM AT ATHENS. 83

STAIRS TO PANDROSEUM AT ATHENS.

Mr. Murray's suggestion, in the last issue of Hellenic Studies,
that a great flight of steps led from the higher level of the
ground between the Parthenon and the Erechtheum to the
court of the Pandroseum, is certainly ingenious, and on first
sight so plausible, that many no doubt will accept it as explain-
ing a difficult point on the topography of the Acropolis at
Athens. There are, however, reasons which induce me to
hesitate before admitting it to be a solution of the problem,
while as the question which it raises is both interesting and
important, I am desirous of an opportunity for stating some of
the reasons which make me pause before assenting to his
proposal.

In the first place, a flight of steps extending 70 feet in
one direction and with the return measuring nearly 100 feet
altogether, is so remarkable a feature, that it is difficult to
understand how it comes that neither Pausanias, nor any other
author, ancient or modern, makes any allusion to it. Even the
celebrated dog of Philochorus who—after Pausanias—is the most
important witness for the arrangement of this temple, would
hardly have rushed through the Temple of Minerva Polias,
down into the Pandroseum, had this magnificent flight of stairs
afforded him far more obvious access to the altar of Jupiter
Herceios under the olive-tree, where he sought shelter.

It is not alluded to in the inscription of 409 B.c. on which
so much of our knowledge of this temple depends; but that
may easily be accounted for. A flight of steps if once fairly
established, is not a work likely to require immediate repair,
and would not therefore be alluded to in that inscription.
A Stoa, however, is mentioned there (lines 142 to 177) as

G 2

84 STAIRS TO PANDROSEUM AT ATHENS.

situated somewhere in this immediate vicinity. I placed it in
the exact position occupied by Mr. Murray’s stairs, ! which, of
course, renders their erection there impossible. This being so,
will he point out where this Stoa stood? Or is he prepared to
deny its existence altogether? In a controversy of this sort,
it is indispensable that all the circumstances of the case should
be taken into account; if any are omitted it may turn out that
the absence of their evidence may vitiate the whole argument.

These are, however, comparatively minor objections, sufficient
perhaps to make any one pause and demand further evidence
before admitting the existence of these stairs, but not such as
to prove that they may not at some time have been placed
there for some purpose or other.

The first serious objection appears to be their absolute in-
utility. It seems most unlikely, to say the least of it, that
any one would provide a flight of steps extending from 70 to
100 feet, as a means of access to a court measuring about
25 feet at its widest part, and fading off to nothing at its western
extremity ; supposing there were no buildings init. The stairs,
in fact, occupy very much more space than the court to which
they lead. That the court was inclosed by a wall on its north
side is quite certain, from the foundations that still exist,
as well as from the elaborate manner in which it was
arranged that the refuse of the altar was got rid of under the
steps of the northern portico.2 It was entered on that side by
a doorway 43 feet wide, under the northern portico of the
Erechtheum, and to contend that on its southern side it was
entered by an open flight of stairs 70 feet in extent, seems most
improbable.

It is possible to conceive that a procession may have wished
to enter the Pandroseum from the south side, but supposing
that to be the case, a flight of stairs 10 or 12 feet wide would
have been ample for that purpose. It will hardly be contended
that any Greek architect in the great age would have used a
flight 70 feet in extent when the smaller number would have
sufficed. I know of no such an excess of the required accom-
modation being anywhere provided in any true style of architec-
ture. At the same time there is no evidence that any necessity

1 Sesstonal Papers, R.1.B.A., 1876-7, 2 Boetticher, Untersuchungen auf der
Ῥ. 139 et seq. Akropolis zu Athen, Figs. 39 to 48.

STAIRS ‘TO PANDROSEUM AT ATHENS. 85

existed for an entrance on this side. On the contrary, ample
means is provided for access to the court on all sides from
which it was likely to be approached. A procession coming
from the Parthenon (the east end, of course,) would pass down
the stairs which did, and do exist, on the north side of the
Erechtheum, and would enter by the door under the northern
portico just alluded to. This was the way Pausanias took,}
though he made a detour into the temple itself, as was natural,
en route. A procession coming from the Propylaea would keep
on the lower level throughout, and enter by the same door
under the north portico, which is the only one of which the
existence is certain, and which was quite sufficient for all
purposes. The court, so far as can be ascertained, contained
only the sacred olive-tree, under which stood the altar of
Jupiter Herceios; the small cell of the virgin Pandrosos, and
the residence of the two virgins regarding whose wanderings
Pausanias tells so strange a tale. The public had evidently
no business in this secluded court, and could not possibly
have required such means of access as Mr. Murray’s scheme
provides for them, especially as besides the doorway under
the north portico, there was also an entrance to this court
from the Temple of Minerva Polias itself, by the doorway in
the west end of that temple, which is the one by which, I
conceive, the dog of Philochorus entered. That, however, was
probably reserved for the priesthood, and them only.

A second obvious objection arises from the condition of the
western wall of the Erechtheum at the point where, according
to Mr. Murray, this flight of steps would naturally have ‘ tailed
into the wall.’ There is in fact exactly in this position, a
sinking in the wall which is one of the most remarkable, and at
the same time the most mysterious features in the whole design
of the temple. It is distinctly shown in Inwood’s Plate IL, in
the Πρακτικά, Plate 2, and in photographs in my possession,
Still its dimensions cannot be exactly ascertained in consequence
of its south edge being partially hidden by the terrace wall,
and its base not being quite freed from rubbish; while its
northern edge, now at least, seems somewhat irregular, but this
may be owing to its being filled up by rubble masonry in modern

1 Sessional Papers, R.I,B.A.,1876-7, p. 142.

86 STAIRS TO PANDROSEUM AT ATHENS.

times, which makes it impossible to say what its original form
may have been. Its upper edge can however be easily traced,
and is perfectly horizontal for at least 10 feet, and in height is
about the same. Practically it is a square frame, or sinking,

ATIdWIL OL =
AVM¥00"0 ..LEIM =

ο 10 20 FT

Elevation of part of the West Front of the Temple of Minerva Polias from
the Πρακτικά.

measuring 10 feet each way. No one apparently has measured
its depth, though as the rubble masonry has been removed from
its northern upper angle, at A in woodcut, nothing would be
easier to ascertain. The west wall of the temple where thickest
is only 2 feet 4 inches, and so far as can be ascertained from
photographs, this is reduced on the back of this sinking to
about one half, say 1 foot to 14 inches. It does not go through
as it is not visible on the inside, where the masonry is of the
usual microlithic character throughout. The original architects
of the temple were so fully aware of the danger that was
incurred by this extreme attenuation of one of the main walls
of the building, that they placed over it a great stone, shown
in the annexed woodcut, measuring 14 feet 9 inches in length,
by 4 feet 8} inches in height, or equal to three courses of the
ordinary masonry of the wall, and altogether this stone is

STAIRS TO PANDROSEUM AT ATHENS. 87

probably three or four times larger than any other stone used in
the building. It was bonded into the masonry of the main wall
to the extent of about two feet at its northern extremity, and
assuming that it was supported to the same extent at its
southern end, the width of the sinking of its upper edge would
again be about 10 feet. For whatever purpose this great stone
was placed where we now find it, one thing is at least evident :
it was not for the purpose of producing effect by megalithic
magnificence. The mouldings of the pilasters above it are
carried across it, and at its southern end a portion is nicked out
of it in order to accommodate the lines of masonry there, so
that in fact it looks to the eye like three or even four separate
stones instead of one.

Assuming the facts to be as just stated, and on this point
there seems no margin for doubt, the question arises, for what
purpose did the original architects of the temple take such
pains to provide this sinking, so unsymmetrical with all the other
features of the facade, and apparently not only so useless, but,
as it turns out, so dangerous 7}

Various answers may no doubt be given to this question.
I suggested that the sinking was managed to receive the end of
the flat-roofed Stoa, which I believe existed in this place. I
did so because, as any architect well knows, if a flat-roofed
stone building is made to abut flush on the perpendicular wall
of an adjacent edifice, it is indispensable, either that one course
of the larger building should project from the wall, or that
a sinking should be left into which the roof stones of the lower
building should be inserted, otherwise it is impossible to secure
a water-tight joint without the use of metal flashings, which
in this case were not of course used. JI am aware there
may be difficulties in accepting this solution which it is
not at present necessary to allude to, but, so far as I can
judge, it is the most plausible theory that has yet been
suggested.

If it were not to receive the end of the Stoa, is it possible
that the sinking was made to frame and protect some painting

1 That it was dangerous is proved by that would have ensued had it fallen,
the fact that this great stone is now that the rubble masonry which now
cracked right through, and it seems disfigures this part of the front was
to have been to prevent the total ruin inserted.

83 STAIRS TO PANDROSEUM AT ATHENS.

connected with the ἄγαλμα in the niche,! placed somewhat
unsymmetrically above it? It is needless however pursuing these —
conjectures further in this place, as it seems clear that for
whatever purpose it was made, it was not that a stair should
pass diagonally across it. Had such a flight of steps as Mr.
Murray proposes been part of the original design, the first care
of the architects would have been to thicken and strengthen
the masonry at this point, if it was intended to insert the steps
into the wall—to hang them, in fact, according to modern
phraseology. It is not clear whether this process was known to
the Greeks, but even if it were, it is only applicable to stairs
3 to 4 feet wide, and would be absurd if used with steps
extending 70 or 80 feet. Such a flight might abut anywhere
on any wall, as no leak was possible and no closed joint
necessary, and consequently no sinking or projection wanted to
protect the junction. The fact is, if a flight of steps had
originally been intended here, the foundation of the wall would
have been stepped on the mass of masonry necessary to support
the steps, and would inevitably have been visible at the present
day. It need hardly be remarked that the upper triangular
half of the sinking, which would remain visible above the steps
if placed here, would have been artistically as awkward and
unmeaning as it would have been constructively unreasonable.
A third objection I must urge is even more tangible than
the other two, as it is in its nature wholly constructive and
mechanical. This great flight of steps must have rested on
something solid; earth would not support them; they must, in
fact, have been bedded on masonry of some sort, probably rubble
or concrete, forming a triangular mass 10 feet high, by the
same width at least, and with a hypotenuse of about 14 feet.
A Roman architect, to save materials, might have framed an
arch inside abutting against the inner wall, and filled up the
spandrils so as to get a straight line; but however constructed
it must have been such a mass, that it seems almost impossible
it should have disappeared so completely that no trace of it can
now be found, But more than this, had such a triangular mass
of masonry existed here, its inner face would have formed the
best possible support to the terrace. It seems inconceivable that

1 Sessionel Papers, R.1.B.A., 1878-9, p. 218, et seq.

STAIRS TO PANDROSEUM AT ATHENS. 89

the Greeks should first have built the rough-faced terrace wall
that now exists, and then placed in front of it the mass of masonry
necessary to support these steps, and still more inconceivable
that no trace of this masonry should be found attached to that
wall or entangled among its rugosities. The steps, if they ever
existed, were probably in marble, and their disappearance is
consequently easily intelligible, like that of the seats in so
many theatres; but the mass that supported these seats remains
in almost every ancient theatre known, and would certainly
have at least left some trace here had it ever existed.

There are several minor objections which might be urged
against Mr. Murray’s proposal, but the three just insisted upon
are probably sufficient to justify any one in pausing before
accepting it without at least farther explanations, as a final
solution of a difficult problem.

It does not seem necessary that I should say anything in this
place, with reference to Professor Michaelis’ restoration of the
interior of the temple, which Mr. Murray adopts, as I have
already explained, in a supplement to a paper I read to the
Institute of British Architects in 1876,1 my reasons for con-
sidering it untenable. It has besides no direct bearing on
the subject of this paper, and need not therefore be specially
alluded to in this place.

J. FERGUSSON.

1 Sessional Papers, R.1.B.A., 1878-9, p. 218, et seq.

BOAT-RACES AMONG THE GREEKS.

In the course of a careful examination of the coins of Corcyra,
I have come upon a Variety of types which seem to me to allude
to races of galleys. That the Greeks had such races is in
itself probable, and is clearly proved by the testimony of ancient
writers. But on consulting the ordinary works on the games
and races of the Greeks, as well as those which deal with naval
archeology, I have found that the matter has hitherto almost
entirely escaped observation. I therefore feel called on to add
a new chapter, which will indeed be but a short one, to the
history of Greek athletic sports. And I imagine that English-
men, who take so much interest in the races of yachts and
rowing-boats, will not be ungrateful to me if I am able to show
that such races are of greater antiquity than is commonly
imagined,

That galley-races are as old as Homer may seem a rash
assertion ; yet this does seem to be implied in a passage of the
Odyssey, though it is not directly asserted. This passage occurs
‘mm the 8th book of the Odyssey, at the place where Alcinoiis is

BOAT-RACES AMONG THE GREEKS. 91

speaking of the aptness in athletic sports of his subjects the
Phaeacians. He says :—

> Ν 4 3 Ν > / 5 \ \
οὐ γὰρ πυγμάχοι εἰμὲν ἀμύμονες οὐδὲ παλαισταὶ
ἀλλὰ ποσὶ κραιπνῶς θέομεν καὶ νηυσὶν ἄριστοι.

Now there is no doubt that in Homer's day boxing wrestling
and running were alike subjects of competition for prizes in
the games held on various occasions; and thus it seems likely
that galley-rowing, which is here put in close connexion with
them, was also in Homeric times a subject of competition for
prizes. It will not of course do to put into the words of Homer
more meaning than they really contain, or to regard them as any
positive proof of the existence at so early a time of galley-races.
They only establish a probability when read in connexion with
other evidence which we have yet to adduce.

Another piece of evidence relating to the heroic age is
conveyed in a passage of Dion Chrysostom,! which we must
cite at length in view of its importance. The orator is describing
the foundation of the Isthmian contest, and says that at the first
celebration many noted Greek heroes contended, Castor winning
in the Stadium, Peleus in wrestling, Orpheus in playing the
lyre, and so forth. He then continues: ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ νεῶν
ἅμιλλα, καὶ ᾿Αργὼ ἐνίκα, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα οὐκ ἔπλευσεν, GAN
αὐτὴν ἀνέθηκεν ὁ ᾿Ιάσων ἐνταῦθα τῷ Ποσειδῶνι, καὶ τὸ
ἐπίγραμμα ἐπέγραψεν, ὃ λέγουσιν ᾿Ορφέως εἶναι.

> \ \ a > , ,
Ἀργὼ τὸ σκάφος εἰμὶ, θεῷ δ᾽ ἀνέθηκεν ᾿Ιάσων,
» \ τ ΄ / ,
Ισθμια καὶ Νεμέοις στεψάμενον πίτυσιν.

The reading of the second line of the stanza attributed to
Orpheus is certainly corrupt. Boat-races can never have taken
place at Nemea, as the games there were celebrated in a narrow
inland valley. Besides, the pine-wreath belonged not to the
Nemea, where parsley was used, but to the Isthmia exclusively.
We must therefore substitute for the words καὶ Νεμέοις, καλλι-
κόμοις or some such word. The stanza will then record only
an Isthmian victory. Whatever be the value of the story
repeated by Dion, it certainly furnishes a proof that im his
day, and probably at a far earlier period, a galley-race formed

1 Orat. Corinth. xxxvii. T. ii. Ὁ. 107, R.

92 BOAT-RACES AMONG THE GREEKS.

part of the Isthmian festival. For the story under any other
circumstances would scarcely have been invented.

It is strange, that although the seat of the Isthmian games
was one of the busiest sites of Greece between Corinth and
Athens, yet we know but little about their celebration.

Descending to the time of the Persian wars, we may cite
the delightful description by Herodotus of the review held
at Abydos by Xerxes, of his fleet and army.’ As part of this
review took place a νεῶν ἅμιλλα, that is, as some of the editors
expressly state, a race not a mimic fight of ships. On this
occasion the Sidonians were victorious, and the sight gave
much pleasure to the great king.

So far as my researches go, there is no passage of the writers
of the good period which bears any positive testimony to the
racing of Greek galleys for a prize. But Thucydides in speaking
of the start of the Athenian fleet for Sicily,? says that the ships
sailing out in line ἅμιλλαν ἤδη μέχρι Αἰγίνης ἐποιοῦντο. And
at a somewhat later period Iphicrates, when in command of an
Athenian fleet, trained the ships to row at speed in the following
manner; he ranged them out at sea in a line, and at a given
signal despatched them all together towards the shore, when it
was considered a great triumph (μέγα νικητήριον) to be first to
reach the land, and to secure the water and the other things of
which they had need. But neither in the case of the earlier
fleet nor in that of Iphicrates, do we hear anything of prizes.

Distinct mention of these latter is, however, made in a passage
of Arrian, to which my attention has kindly been directed by
Mr. Edmond Warre, of Eton, who is as well acquainted with
everything connected with ancient shipping as he is with
modern boats and the practice of rowing. Arrian* says that
when Alexander the Great was resting at Babylon with his
fleet, he encouraged emulation between the different vessels and
instituted competitions of rowers and steersmen, giving wreaths
to the winners. These competitions would naturally take the
form of races over a fixed course, wherein the skill, both of
rowers and of steersmen, would be tested.

Among the greater athletic festivals of Greece, the Isthmia
alone probably included boat-racing. But we have the express

1 Herod. vi. 44. 3 Xenophon, Hell. vi. 2, 28.
Pp
Δ vi, 82: 4 Anab, 23, 5.

BOAT-RACES AMONG THE GREEKS. 93

testimony of Stephanus Byzantinus, that they were part of the
festival at Actium. His words are ἐν ταύτῃ ᾿Απόλλωνος
γυμνικὸς ἀγὼν Kal ἱππικὸς Kal πλοίων ἅμιλλα διὰ τριετηρίδος
ἦν. ΝΟΥ͂ at the outset it is well to confess that this testimony
is by no means unexceptionable. In the first place, the Actian
contest was not held every third year, but as we know from
Strabo, every fifth ;* Stephanus, therefore, is not entirely to be
trusted. Secondly, since, as every one knows, the Actian
festival was established by Augustus, the πλοίων ἅμιλλα may
perhaps have been a mere ναυμαχία, such as the Romans loved
and had already become accustomed to. But here again we
may again turn to Strabo? who says that Augustus did but
revive an old festival (στεφανίτης ἀγών) which had long been
held in honour of the Actian Apollo. If so, it is at least
probable that the contest of ships belonged to the old festival,
in which case, it can scarcely have been anything but a race.
The third doubt as to the testimony of Stephanus arises from
the fact that both Strabo and Dion Cassius, in mentioning the
institution of the Actian festival, say nothing as to its including
a boat-race. But this difficulty is obviated, if not removed,
when we further consider that these same tio writers also omit
all mention of the musical contest which we know from the
most satisfactory of testimony, that of inscriptions,* to have
been a part of the festival. On the whole then it seems not
unreasonable to accept the testimony of Stephanus, and to
suppose that the festival of Apollo Actius included from early
times a race of galleys.

It is quite certain’ that a boat-race, νεῶν ἅμιλλα, was part
of the Panathenaic Festival. This took place near the harbour
of Piraeus and the tomb of Themistocles, so that Plato the
comedian writes of that monument—

/ vv
τούς τ᾿ ἐκπλέοντας ἐισπλέοντάς τ᾽ ὄψεται
,ὔ A -“
χὡπόταν ἅμιλλα τῶν νεῶν θεάσεται.

Every classical scholar will think, the moment a race of
galleys is mentioned, of the elaborate description in the 5th
book of the Aeneid of the race between triremes of the fleet of
Aeneas, in which Cloanthus was first and carried off the laurel-

1 s.v, Actia. 4 C.\1..No. 1720;

2 Strabo vii. 7, 6. © Michaelis ; Parthenon, pp. 212,
“isl DOR 327.

94. BOAT-RACES AMONG THE GREEKS.

wreath of victory. Whence Virgil gained a hint of these races
we know not and shall never know for certain, but if we allow
that such took place regularly at the Actian festival which
Augustus founded, we shall be some steps nearer to under-
standing the phenomenon. There is a very curious note by
Servius appended to Virgil’s account of the race.’ ‘ Punico
bello primo naumachiam ad exercitium instituere Romani.’
From this it would seem that Servius confused things so
entirely dissimilar as a race of ships and a mimic fight at sea.
It is quite true that the latter was familiar to the Romans.
We read for instance in Livy,? that Scipio held a sham fight of
ships before setting out for Carthage. And these were known
also to the Greeks of the same times. Livy® tells us that
Nabis, the cruel tyrant of Sparta, had frequent sea-fights for
practice, which he calls ‘simulacra navalis pugnae.’ But these
sham fights seem to us to be of a totally different character from
galley-races, such as that described by Virgil, and we do not easily
see how the mind of Servius could run on from one to the other.

If, as is probable, the Romans borrowed even the ναυμαχία
proper from the Greeks, ᾧ fortiori they must have borrowed
the race of galleys, a thing in nature foreign to the genius of
the less nautical Roman people. This being the case, it is
interesting to observe that the Isthmia and the festival of the
Actian Apollo were held in a region, whence in a special degree
Greek influences spread to Rome.

I believe myself to have discovered in the coins of the island
of Corcyra clear traces of similar races won by the Corcyreans.
This people, it should be observed, were a colony of Corinth,
lived near the Actian promontory, and considered themselves
to be the representatives of the Homeric Phaeacians, so that
among them, if anywhere in Greece, we might expect boat-races
to flourish.

COPPER COINS OF CORCYRA.

1, Obv.—Forepart of galley.
Rev.—K O Cantharus.
Names over the galley:—AAKA, EAEY@EPIA, EYKAEIA,
EYTNOMIA, @HPA, KOPKYPA, KQMOS, ΚΎΠΡΙΣ,
AAONIKA?, NIKA, NEOTHS, MAAAAS, ΠΡΩ͂ΤΑ,
ZOTEIPA, SAMA, ΦΩΣΦΟΡΟΣ.

1 Ad, 114. 4 ΧΧΙΧ. 29. oO XN Os

BOAT-RACES AMONG THE GREEKS. 95

2. Obv.—Head of Dione.:
Rev.— RK Prow ; on its side, NIKA.
3. Obv.—Head of young Herakles.
Rev.—KOPKYPAINN ®AAAKPOS. Prow; on its side, NIKA.

4. Obv.—Heads of Herakles and Corcyra.
Rev.—KOPKYPAINN APISTEAS APISTONOS. Prow; on its side,
NIKA.

. Obv.—Head of Septimius Severus.
Rev.—KOPKYPAION Galley; on the prow, Nike, who holds
wreath and palm.

οι

6. Obv.—Head of Dionysus.
Jev.—Amphora, bound with wreath, of ivy or laurel.

~~]

. Obv.—KOPKYPA Head of Poseidon.
Rev.—KOPKYPA Amphora ; over it, wreath.

8. Obv.—Head of Dionysus,
Rev.—R Pegasus on prow; in his mouth, palm (silver coin).

9, Obv.—Eagle standing ; in field, wreath.

δ᾽

Rev.—KOP Nike; holds acrostolium and wreath.

Several of these coins denote a close connexion between the
goddess Nike and the ships of Corcyra. In No. 5 she stands
on a prow (see cut); in No. 9 she holds the acrostolium, a symbol
of naval victory. In No. 8 her place is taken by Pegasus, who
stands like her on a ship and holds in his mouth her palm.
Nike however, as is well known, although usually on coins she
appears in connexion with the games, yet does sometimes occur
as a memorial of victoryin war. So it might perhaps be doubted
whether her appearance on the coins of Corcyra may not have
reference rather to military than agonistic triumphs. But several
objections to this view make themselves felt. Thus, coin No. 5
dates from the reign of Septimius Severus. But at that time
there could be no question of warlike triumphs for the people of
Corcyra, who were of course mere subjects of Rome. Again,
there appears frequently on the coins, an amphora either bound
with a wreath (No. 6), or surmounted with a wreath (No.7). It
seems not unreasonable to suppose that this amphora may stand
for the reward of victory in a race; such a vessel may have been
presented, filled with wine, to the owner of a winning trireme ;
in which case we could the more readily understand the apparent
connexion of the god Dionysus with the victorious galleys. It
is a pity that we cannot attain to certainty as to the meaning of
the word NIKA which is written on the side of the galley in

96 BOAT-RACES AMONG THE GREEKS.

Nos. 2-4. It would appear, as we shall presently see, that Nike
was an occasional name of a vessel at Corcyra, but the names of
vessels on the coins of Corcyra are usually written above and not
on them, and as the word NIKA recurs under several magistrates
and at various periods, it seems to have some general meaning.
It is by no means impossible that the word Nixa may here
take the place of the figure of that deity which we elsewhere
find (No. 5). It is, however, impossible to be sure.

On one set of our coins (No. 1) we have an interesting list of
names of ships in the Coreyrean navy, ships, it may be, which
had won prizes for their owners or equippers. The list is
decidedly pleasing :—Courage, Liberty, Fair-fame, Good-order,
Chace, Corcyra, Revel, Cypris, Victory, Youth, Pallas, Foremost,
Preserver, Fame, Phosphorus.

As to the exact meaning of these pieces, or the occasions on
which they were minted, we can scarcely venture to form a
theory. But it is not rash to assume that if there were races
of galleys in which Coreyrean ships competed, these coins
would have some connexion with such races.

The imperial coins of Nicopolis, which was the scene of the
Actian festival already mentioned, are very common. Their
types seem to contain allusions to both the kinds of πλοίων
ἅμιλλαν of which I have spoken. Sometimes we find vessels
full of soldiers and engaged in warfare, either simulated or real.
But sometimes, as in the coin of the reign of Gallienus figured
in our cut, we see a vessel with rowers merely, who seem to be
exerting all their strength and to be urged to still greater
exertions by the pilot, or the κελευστής.ἷ

The coin of Corcyra, which is figured at the head of this
paper, raises the interesting question whether in a Greek race
of galleys, sails as well as oars would be allowed. The galley
there represented is certainly under sail. Of course, according
to our notions of sport, the raising of sails would entirely spoil
the contest, but the Greeks may have thought otherwise. In
fact, it is not likely that the galley-races of the Greeks would
afford much interest to a modern athlete or oarsman. The
construction of the galleys afforded little scope for skill in
rowing, and the rowers were often slaves. The prize went no

1 See also Mus. Arigoni 11. xxi. 284, 288; xxvii. 323: xxviii. 393.

BOAT-RACES AMONG THE GREEKS. 97

doubt to the owner or master who equipped the ship, and some
of the honour may have rested with the steersman, but very
little would attach to the mere rowers and sailors of the crew.

It is perhaps impossible to say whether the galley-races thus
perhaps rewarded with an amphora of wine, and engaged in by
Corcyrean vessels, were rowed at Corcyra, whether they were
part of the Isthmian festival, or whether they were the races
which took place, as we have seen, at the festival of Apollo
Actius. The Dionysiac character of the prize would seem to
speak in favour of their being Corcyrean. But, on the other
hand, on the coins of Corinthian types issued from the mint of
Leucas, near the Actian promontory, during the fourth century
before our aera, we find indications which seem to point ΠῚ
the other direction. Thus on one stater we find as adjunct or
symbol, the letter A in a wreath, and as this is a frequent type
on the Roman coins of Nicopolis with undoubted reference to
the Actian festival, we can scarc.ly be mistaken in seeing the
same reference here. And so when on other staters of Leucas
we find the same letter A in conjunction, not with a wreath, but
with a prize amphora surmounted by a branch of ivy, this also
would seem to refer to the Actia. And if so, the ivy-bound
amphora of the coins of Corcyra might also belong to the
Actian festival.

And in fact, as the people of Syracuse, Leontini, and
Messana, and Philip of Macedon himself, placed on their
coins types bearing allusion to Olympic victories, what more
natural than that the great island of Western Greece should
commemorate on its money the prowess of its citizens in the
boat-races of Poseidon, Dionysus, or Apollo? Well could they
say with Alcinotis :—

> \ / ᾽ \ ᾽ / ᾽ \ \
ov yap πυγμάχοι εἰμὲν ἀμύμονες οὐδὲ παλαισταὶ

yr \ \ a , \ \ ”
ἀλλὰ ποσὶ κραιπνῶς θέομεν Kal νηυσὶν ἀριστοι.

ῬΕΒΟΥ GARDNER.

Η. S.—VOL. 1]. : Η

98 ON AN INSCRIPTION AT CAMBRIDGE,

ON AN INSCRIPTION AT CAMBRIDGE: BOECKH,
Gad. GAU0G:

THIS inscription, which affords no external indications of its
origin, was published by Béckh among the Attic decrees on very
slender grounds, which he himself practically recalls in the Ap-
pendix, O. J. G. vol. i. p. 900. With reason, therefore, Kohler in
vol. ii. of new Berlin Corpus has not included it among the Attic
decrees. In December 1880, I re-read this inscription, together
with most of the other marbles in the Library of Trinity College,
Cambridge. I verified the reading of the first line given by
Dobree (Appendix to Rose’s Jnscriptiones Graecae), and adopted
by Bockh, Appendix /. c. To the text of the decree there is
therefore nothing to add, and it will suffice to append a copy
of it in cursive. But I hope to show that the decree is from
Halikarnassos, and to identify the revolution of Troezen to
which it alludes.

§ 1. Latter portion of a probouleuma :
[—Tpo-

A 3 / 5) ae A, 3 / \
five ἐν στήλῃ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ᾽ ἐπαινέσαι δὲ Kal
Ζηνόδοτον Βαυκιδέως, ἐπειδὴ Τροζήνιοι γε-
γράφασιν ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι τῷ πρὸς τὴν πό-
ὅ λιν ὅτι ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς γέγονε περὶ τὸν δῆμον
τὸν Τροζηνίων καὶ κατὰ καιρὸν ἀφικόμενος
ἐβοήθησε καὶ συνηγωνίσατο αὐτοῖς εἰς τὴν
> / nA / \ 5» Ἁ
ἐλευθερίαν τῆς πόλεως καὶ τὴν ἐξαγωγὴν
τῆς φρουρᾶς ἀξίως τῆς τε πατρίδος καὶ τῆς
10 οἰκειότητος καὶ εὐνοίας τῆς ὑπαρχούσης
τῇ πόλ ὃς Τροζηνί λέσαι δὲ αὐτίὸν
ἢ πόλει πρὸς Τροζηνίους, κα « δὲ αὐτῖὸι
καὶ εἰς πρυτανεῖον ἐπὶ δεῖπνον.

ON AN INSCRIPTION AT CAMBRIDGE. 99
§ 2. Rider moved in the ekklesia by Iatrokles :

ἜἜδοξε τῷ δήμῳ: ᾿Ιατροκλῆς Πυθίωνος εἶπίε.

τὰ μὲν ἄλλα καθότι ἡ βουλὴ ἐψηφίσατο, τὸ δὲ
15 ψήφισμα τὸ περὶ Τροζηνίων ὁ προεβούλευϊσεν

ἡ βουλὴ ἀναγράψαι ἐν στήλῃ λιθίνῃ καὶ σ᾽ τῆ-

σαι ἐν TO ἱερῷ τοῦ ᾿Απόλλωνος" ἐπιμεληθ[ῆναι

δὲ τῆς ἀναγραφῆς τοὺς ἐξετωστάς" τὸ [δὲ

ἀνάλωμα τὸ εἰς τὴν στήλην δοῦναι τὸΪν τα-
20 μίαν]

The letters are of the early Macedonian times, with the forms
LEM OE, with no apices, and the cota adscriptum throughout.
The stone is a white marble sfe/é, apparently sawn off at the
top, and measuring now 123 inches wide, 114 inches high.
Although the stone is probably imperfect at the bottom, the end of
the decree is entire. But a good deal has been lost from the be-
ginning, so that we have not the usual formulas of the date and
heading to reveal what city it was to which Zenodotos belonged,
and which voted this decree. Dobree thought it might be Keos
or Delos. But I have little hesitation in connecting the decree
with Halikarnassos. It is true that we have at present very
few decrees from Halikarnassos of the ordinary type. (4) Only
one such occurs in the inscriptions published by Mr. Newton,
Discoveries at Cnidus, Halicarnassus and Branchidae, Il. p. 687 ;
(B) another is given in the Bulletin of the French school at
Athens, 1880, p. 395; where the date is assigned by naming
the eponymous πρύτανις and the γραμματεύς. (C) This agrees
with the formula in the decree for the priestess of Artemis
Pergaea now in the British Museum (C. J. G. 2656), where,
however, as the subject of the decree is religious, the νεωποιός is
named first of all, and the prytanis and secretary are made
subordinate eponymi: [πὶ ν]εωποιοῦ Χαρμύλου τοῦ Διαγόρου,
μηνὸς Ἡραϊκλε]ίου, | πρυτανείας τῆς μετὰ Μενεκλεῦς τοῦ
Φορμίωνος, [γρ]αμματεύοντος Διοδότου τοῦ ἩἩδονικοῦ. The
indications οἵ Halikarnassian origin in our decree are these.
(1) The stelé is ordered to be placed ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ Tod Ἀπόλλωνος :
similarly in B cited above, we have ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ [᾿Απ͵]όλλωνος
as the place for the decree. (2) The financial board who are to
contract for the inscribing the decree, expending money received
from the treasurer (?), are called οἱ ἐξετασταί. An ἐξεταστής is

H 2

100 ON AN INSCRIPTION AT CAMBRIDGE,

mentioned in Attic decrees of 299 and 295 B.c. (C. J. A. ii. 297,
300), but he is an ofticer of the tribe and not of the state, and is
named together with the ¢rittyarchs: tov ἐξεταστὴν καὶ τοὺς
TpiTTvapyous: the expenses of inscribing the honorary decree
being thrown upon the tribe to which the man thus honoured
might belong. A board of ἐξετασταί are named in two decrees
from Ionian Erythrae published by Rangabé, Antig. Hell. No.
737, 738: "Εδοξεν τῇ βουλῇ καὶ τῶ δήμῳ: στρατηγῶν, πρυ-
τανέων, ἐξεταστῶν γνώμη" «.7.r. In a decree from Chios
published by Gerhard and Kirchhoff, JZonatsber. d. Berl. Akad.
1863, p. 265, respecting a statue we read τοὺς ἐξεταστὰς το[ὺΪς
ἐνεστηκότ[α]ς ἐγδοῦναι TO ἔργον, the funds being supplied by
ὁ κατὰ μῆνα ταμίας. Also of ἐξετασταί are similarly mentioned
upon a decree from Laodikeia (ad mare ?) in honour of Prienian
dikasts (which will appear among the Prienian inscriptions in the
British Museum Collection). Lastly, at Halikarnassos, in (Οὐ, I. G,
2656 (cited above as C), we read ἀνουγόντων δὲ οἱ ἐξετασταὶ
κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν τὸν θησαυρόν κιτιλ. When then in our decree we
have ἐπιμεληθῆναι δὲ τῆς ἀναγραφῆς τοὺς ἐξεταστάς, the phrase
indicates a provenance from Asia Minor, and will very well suit
Halikarnassos. (3) The words τῆς οἰκειότητος καὶ εὐνοίας τῆς
ὑπαρχούσης τῇ πόλει πρὸς Τροζηνίους would be exactly ap-
propriate to Halikarnassos, which was a colony from Troezen:
some such tie of kindred is implied in οἰκειότητος. Slight as
these indications may appear when considered separately, they
have a cumulative force when taken together. And the his-
torical indications will be found to confirm them. The character
of the writing belongs to the early Macedonian times; and there
is no occasion which so exactly accords with the expressions in
the decree, as the ‘liberation’ of Troezen in B.c. 303, when
Demetrios, son of Antigonos, marched from Athens into Pelo-
ponnese, and expelled the Macedonian garrisons from the cities:
Δημήτριος δὲ παρελθὼν εἰς Πελοπόννησον, οὐδενὸς ὑφισταμένου
τῶν ἐναντίων, ἀλλὰ φευγόντων καὶ προϊεμένων τὰς πόλεις,
προσηγάγετο τήν τε καλουμένην ᾿Ακτὴν καὶ ᾿Αρκαδίαν πλὴν
Μαντινείας, καὶ "Apyos καὶ Σικυῶνα καὶ Κόρινθον ἐλύσατο
τάλαντα δοὺς ἑκατὸν τοῖς φρουροῦσιν κιτλ. Plut. Dem. 25.
Troezen is not here mentioned by name, but it is certainly im-
plied (see Droysen, Hellenismus, ii. 2, p. 184). After Ipsos we
may conclude that Troezen became subject to Macedon again,

ON AN INSCRIPTION AT CAMBRIDGE, 101

and received a garrison: for in 278 B.c. it was ‘liberated’ afresh
by the Spartan King Kleonymos (Polyaen. Sfrateg τι. 29,1). The
removal of the garrison in 303 took place without a struggle, but
yet under the hostile pressure of Demetrios and jhis army in
the neighbourhood. The latter is described im the decree by
συνηγωνίσατο αὐτοῖς εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν : the former by the
words ἐξαγωγὴν τῆς φρουρᾶς---τπον ἐκπολιόρκησιν nor ἐξέλασιν.
There was good reason why Halikarnassos should take ἃ
lively interest in the liberation of Troezen. The ambition of
Asandros, satrap of Karia, had obliged Antigonos to subdue
him by force in 313 B.c. and thus in the name of liberty and
autonomy for the Greek cities, Karia passed under the im-
mediate sway of Antigonos (Diod. Sic. xix. 75; Droysen, Hel-
lenismus, ii. 2, pp. 29, 30). And thus Halikarnassos, recently
liberated by Antigonos, congratulates Troezen in this decree
upon her liberation by Demetrios. It is noticeable that Zeno-
dotos is the name of an historian of Troezen (Dionys. Hal. 11. 49) :
and the father’s name, Βαυκιδεύς, which is a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον,
suggests a connexion with Troezen. For Βαῦκις was an
Olympic victor from Troezen (Pausan. vi. 8, 4); and there
was an island off Troezen called Βαυκιδιάς (Pliny, V. H. iv. 19).
It may be that Zenodotos, a native of Halikarnassos, was con-
nected by family ties with Troezen: at the time that Demetrios
is ‘liberating’ the Peloponnesian cities, he happens to be in
Greece proper, and is glad to take part in the armed demon-
stration which led to the withdrawal of the garrison from
Troezen. The Troezenians send a message by him to Halikar-
nassos (line 4) testifying of the services he had rendered ; in
reply to which the Halikarnassians passed the decree before us.
Its object was twofold: first, they probably congratulated Troezen,
praising its loyalty to the kings, and expressed their thanks for
the kind feeling conveyed in the letter: this decree they send
to Troezen with a request that it may be inscribed and set up
there (lines 1-2). Secondly, they voted honours to Zenodotos
himself (lines 13 foll.). The form Ῥροξήνιοι, although unusual,
has no less authority than the famous tripod-stand from Delphi,

on which we read Τροζάνιοι.
KE. L. Hicks.

102 INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA.

INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA.—II.

In the first number of this Journal I passed in review a
rare survival of antiquity, the Oracle-inscriptions of Dodona.
These, as was there stated, formed a part only of the collection
of C. Carapanos. For the remainder, though many of the in-
scriptions are of great interest, dialectically, archaeologically,
and historically, I cannot claim the attraction of novelty which
so conspicuously characterised the Oracle-inscriptions as relics
sui gencris. I have thought, however, that it may be not un-
acceptable to English students to have before them in an
accessible form the full tale of the Dodonaean texts, so far as
they are legible and not absolutely fragmentary. As, then, in
the former number I gave the Oracle-inscriptions seriatim with
more or less of commentary, so I propose in the following pages
to attempt an examination and explanation of the documents
which complete the catalogue. It will be hardly necessary to
say that, as before, my indebtedness to previous critics—Bursian
(Sitzwngsber. d. kin. Baier. Ges. d. Wiss. Ph.-Hist. Cl. 1878),
Blass, Friinkel, Christ, Carapanos himself—is considerable.

According to the enumeration given on p. 229 of the first
number of the Journal, the inscriptions remaining to be noticed
are (1) Hx voto inscriptions on bronze. (2) Inscriptions on bronze
or copper: these comprise (a) decrees of citizenship; (Ὁ) deeds
of manumission ; (0) deeds of proxenia ; (d) a deed concerning
right of intermarriage; (6) donation of property; (/) purchase
of a slave. (3) An inscription on an iron strigil. (4) Two or
three inscriptions on terra cotta. (5) A proxenia-decree, the
most complete in the collection, on a limestone tablet.

I will take these classes, as far as possible, in order.

‘With the exception of one addressed to Aphrodite, the ex
voto inscriptions, 24 in number, are dedications to Zeus Naios

INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA. 103

and Dione, one or both. Only one of these is of any length
(Carapanos). It is a dedication to the Dodonaean Zeus, and is
engraved on a very thin plate of bronze 21 centimetres in height.
The last three lines are interrupted in the middle by a phallic
figure. Christ (Rhein. Mus. 1878, pp. 610—613) was the first to
see that the inscription is partially if not altogether metrical ; not,
however, in the ordinary verse of inscriptions, but with a lyric
rhythm. He gives the text as follows (the upright strokes here
and throughout this article mark the lines of the original)—

θεὸς" τύχα.
Ζεῦ Δωδώνης μεδέϊων,
τόδε σοὶ δῶρον πέμπω Trap ἐμοῦ,
Ἀγάθων | ᾽᾿Ἐχεφύλου καὶ γενεά | ,
πρόξενοι Μολοσσῶν |
καὶ συμμάχων,
ἐν τριάκοντα γενεαῖς |
ἐκ Τρώιας Κασσάνδρας γενεά |
Ζακύνθιοι.

Tn the first three lines at any rate we readily recognise Ana-
paestic Dimeters, and in the next a Trochaic Ithyphallicus. The
metres of the remaining lines are respectively Iambic, Trochaic (?),
Anapaestic, Iambic. The whole is thus rendered by Christ—

‘God; Fortune. Zeus, sovereign (or protector) of Dodona,
I send thee this present from myself, I, Agathon, son of Eche-
phylos, and my family, proxeni of the Molossians and their
allies; we being a family derived from Trojan Kassandra during
thirty generations, Zacynthians.’

The invocation to Ζεύς as Δωδώνης μεδέων reminds us of the
Iliad (xvi. 234). This poetical opening, the use of the first
person in πέμπω map ἐμοῦ, the position of σοι and the order
of the words generally, al! mark deviations from the normal
type of dedicatory inscriptions. Egger (in the Appendix to
Carapanos’s work) placing no comma after συμμάχων renders :
‘Proxeni of the Molossians and their allies for thirty generations
from Cassandra the Trojan, we, Zacynthians by birth.’ But
this translation would certainly require γενεᾷ or γενεάν, not
γενεά. He suggests further that there may have. existed among
the Molossi lists of πρόξενοι, ascending in a manner more or
less fictitious, to the times of the Trojan war. We have some-

104 INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA.

thing of the same kind in the lists of εὐεργέται of the Greek
cities. They were sometimes known by the abbreviation
εὐεργεσίαι, and a collection of these appears to have been made
by Plutarch (in the three lost books entitled Πόλεων εὐεργεσίαι ;
see Egger in the Comptes Rendus de Acad. des Inseriptions et
Belles Lettres, 1865, pp. 75-6). The punctuation given above
leads to a ditferent explanation. If we adopt the Herodotean
definition of γενεά (Herodot. ii. 142: γενεαὶ yap τρεῖς ἀνδρῶν
ἑκατὸν ἔτεά ἐστιν) we have Agathon apparently declaring
himself to be living 1,000 years after Cassandra. Egger,
however, reckoning the γενεά at 30 years, and the 30 γενεαί
consequently to be 900 years, and assuming as the ‘classic’
date for the taking of Troy the year 1270 B.c., arrives at
370 B.C. as the date of this inscription. But the dates assigned
tor the taking of Troy vary between very wide limits; and the
date of this inscription (if we calculate 30 generations to be 1,000
years) might be anywhere between 334 and 184 8.c. Bursian
thinks Egger’s date too early by 100 years. That Pausanias
represents both of the children, which Cassandra bore to Aga-
memnon, to have been killed by Clytaemnestra and Aegisthus,
and to have been buried at Mycenae, is of little moment. The
present inscription only shows that there was another tradition
of which genealogists and priests would not have been slow to
avail themselves. It is remarkable that there was in Zacynthus
a special worship of Apollo; thus the fiction of a priestly
family deriving its origm from Cassandra was peculiarly ap-
propriate there. In any case the inscription furnishes one more
instance of the employment of genealogies as one of the instru-
ments of Greek chronology.1. But I am not sure that a solution
communicated to me by Mr. William Ridgeway is not better
and simpler than those of Christ or Egger. He would

‘ We may perhaps compare the prac- 245). Still more precise is the copied

tice observed by members of sacerdotal
families in tracing their origin as well
us the titles of their priesthood to the
sod whose priests they were. Thus we
vead in C.2.G. 1353 : “H πόλις M. Αὐρή-
Auov ᾿Αριστοκράτη Δαμαινέτου κατὰ γένος
ἱερέα ἀπὸ Ἡρακλέους μή, ἀπὸ Διοσκούρων
wo’ «.7.A. (cf. 1840, 1349, 1355, 1373,
1374, and Le Bas, Voyage Arch., ii. n.

inscription of Halicarnassus, C.1.G.
2655, where are mentioned by name,
with the duration of their office for a
period of 504 years, successive priests of
Poseidon, from the date of the monument
itself back to Telamon, a supposed son of
the god, the seventh in descent, Anthas,
being possibly a historical personage.

INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA. 105

place a stop after γενεαῖς and translates: ‘The family are
Zacynthians from the Trojan Cassandra’; or, ‘The family is
from the Trojan Cassandra; they are Zacynthians.’ It is not
natural to say ‘derived from C. during (ἐν) thirty generations,’
The character of the alphabet used points to a date anterior to
the destruction of the ancient temple of Zeus by the Aetolians
in B.C. 219 (Polyb. vi. 4, 67).

The exterior neck of a small vase carries the following
dedication—

Φιλοκλε[ί]δα[ς] ὁ Δαμοφίλου Λευκαδιος At Naio,

for so Bursian reads it. The ε for εὐ in Φιλοκλείδας, the
o for ὦ in Nai and the form of the letters generally, indicate
a respectable antiquity, perhaps the fifth or sixth century B.C ;
though the character is certainly not as old as that of the
inscription described by Kirchhoff (Stud.? 93) as the only archaic
one found in Leucas.

A tripod bears on its exterior rim the dedicatory formula
Τερψικλῆς τῷ Al Naiw ῥαψῳδὸς ἀνέθηκε (Ῥ]. xxiii. 2 and 2 bis).
The character belongs to the fifth century B.c. ; the use of ἡ and
ὦ probably show that Terpsicles was an Ionian. We may infer
from this inscription that the musical contests, the existence of
which at Dodona is proved by the presence of a theatre, in-
cluded also contests of rhapsodists. The votive offering in this
case was doubtless made by Terpsicles as the result of a victory
in the festival of the Naia—Another tripod (Pl. xxii. 3, 4)
inscribed on two of its feet is an offering to Zeus from the
Lechoians (7). On one foot are the words Aw δῶρον ἀνέθηκε
πόλις ; on the other, which Carapanos perceived from its form
and dimensions to belong to the same tripod, the word
Aeywiwv.—A patera (Pl. xxiii. 5) has on the exterior of
the rims the dedication Σωταῖρος ἀνέθηκε Διὶ Naiw.—The in-
scription on the inner rim of a goblet (Pl. xxiii. 6) states that
Dorobios presented to Zeus Naios certain offerings vowed by
Diopeithes: Δωρόβιος Διὶ Νάοι ἀνέθηκε ἃ Διοπέθης (i.e. Ato-
πείθης) εὔξατο. Carapanos, on no very strong grounds, thinks
it possible that this Diopeithes may have been the celebrated
χρησμολόγος at Sparta, of whom mention is made by Plutarch
(Vit. Ages. iii., Vit. Lysandr. xxii). The supposition accords
very well with the date to be inferred from the style of the

106 INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA.

letters, the fourth century B.c. The occasional use of ε for εἰ
in inscriptions survived, as is well known, for some time, the in-
troduction of the Ionic alphabet.—On a fragment of a small casket
(Pl. xxiv. 3) we find the words Aw Naiw (sic) Φιλῖνος Ἀθηναῖος.
The name Φιλῖνος as Athenian is sufficiently familiar to us from
inscriptions, 6... C. 1. α΄, 165, a catalogue of persons killed in war
in different places in the year B.c. 457. A Philinos was co-trier-
arch with Demosthenes (Mid. 161), and an orator of the same
name is cited by Athenaeus (x. 425, b).—Sometimes two donors
united in making an offering, A small goblet (Pl. xxiv. 4)
has on its interior surface the double dedication Αὐταγαθίδας
Au Naim and Avtoxpatidas At Naw. The difference in the
orthography on the same offering is remarkable-—A small vase
(Pl. xxiv. 5 and 5 bis) is dedicated by Bemaios, son of Phylleus:
Βημαῖος Φυλλέος Act Ναΐῳ dapov.—A rim of bronze (Pl. xxiv.
6 and 6 bis) which might have served as the diadem of a statue,
or ornament of a vase, bears the inscription: ΠΠαλεῖς Avi Νάῳ.
The town ΠΠάλη of Cephallenia is probably meant (Ρααβ. vi. 15,
7, Strab. x. 2, 15)—We have next a circular mirror (Pl. xxv.
1) inscribed over its whole surface with characters indicating
the fifth century B.c. The words run: Πολυξένα | ταγεὶν
ἀντίθητι tot Ai | καὶ χρήματα. Carapanos’s explanation of
Tayev as Taye with euphonic v, or as standing for ταγὴν = κατὰ
διαταγήν may be rejected at once. Bursian’s explanation is
better, but not altogether satisfactory. He takes ταγέν to be
a neuter participle of the passive aorist: ‘ Polyxena dedicates
to Zeus [this mirror, κάτοπτρον] as an offering prescribed to
her, together with money.’—A large vase (Pl. xxv. 2 and 2 bis)
in the form of an ascos is dedicated to Zeus Naios and Dione,
the date being marked! by the name of Machatas, the
ἀγωνοθέτης. The words are: Ἐπὶ ἀγωνοθέτα Μαχάτα Ilap-
θαίου Att Naov καὶ Awva. The error in Ndov and Ava,
apparently the fault of the engraver, is corrected to Nao. and
Διώνᾳ in another vase (Pl. xxv. 2 ter) similar to the preceding,
and bearing the same inscription. If this Machatas was son of
Charops I., one of the most important personages of Epirus in
the second century B.C., we may assign the inscription to that
period. Carapanos suggests that Παρθαίου is probably only a
different form of Hap@ivov. The Παρθῖνοι or ἸΠαρθῆνοι were a

1 See below the remarks on Pl, xxxii. 3, p. 120.

INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA. 107

people in the north of Epirus, and were held to be sometimes
Epirote, sometimes Illyrian or Macedonian.—A small cande-
labrum (Pl. xxv. 3 and 3 dis) is dedicated by a Glaucon, whose
dialect, to judge from the form Avwvy, was not Doric: Γλαύκων
Aw Nai@ Avwvn—A small wheel (Pl. xxvi. 1) bears the in-
scription: ᾿ΩὨφελίων Adpodita ἀνέθηκε. The place where this
was found Carapanos assumes to have been a shrine dedicated
to Ἀφροδίτη. Bursian, however, remarks that the conclusion is
too hasty, and derives little support from the statement of
Servius (on Virg. Aen. iii. 466) that at Dodona was a temple
consecrated ‘Jovi et Veneri’; for there, as even the use of
the singular templ/wm shows, the name Venus plainly corresponds
to the Greek Διώνη.ἷ

Lastly, we have to notice an interesting fragment recording
a dedication by the Athenians from the spoils of the Pelo-
ponnesians after a naval victory. The words are: Ἀθηναῖοι ἐκ
Πελοπον || εσίον ναυμαχίᾳ νικέσαντες ἀζνέθηκαν or ἀνέθεσαν].
The right-hand portion from the Dodonaean collection was
supplemented by another fragment, forming the left-hand
portion, from the Museum at Berlin, and has been explained
by Frankel in the Archdologische Zeitung, 1878, p. 71. The
characters belong to the fifth century B.c., and as may be seen
from Πελοπονεσίον and νικέσαντες are pre-lonic. That the
inscription was not later than 446 B.c. is shown by the form of
alpha (A) which disappears from public documents after that
date. Again, the sigma with four strokes (2) appears first on
the famous list of the fallen in C. 1. A. I. 433, which refers to
the year 460 B.c. Friinkel is of opinion that the inscription is
actually a second document commemorating the Athenian
deeds of prowess in the year 460 B.c. (Comp. Thuc. i. 105).
—An inscription, possibly dedicatory, on an iron strigil (PI.
xxvi. 8 and 8 bis) is given by Carapanos as follows :

Ζηνικέτη βασιλεῖ χρῆσαι wm... a Διος N[dov καὶ ΔιώΪνας

χρῆμα καὶ ἐργασίας ἅπασ[ι]ν....

αὐτὸς ἐπιστάμενα τελέσας Y....

ΠΕ τ GUD... C@EEVEOL. .

Little can be made out of this as it stands; the first three
lines seem to have a metrical rhythm. Carapanos may be right

1 See Vol. I. of this Journal, p. 231.

108 INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA.

in explaiming the first word to mean ‘suppliant of Zeus.’ The
characters are ancient, perhaps of the fourth century B.c.—
There remains a short but highly interesting inscription not
found in Carapanos’s work, but published by him in the A7ch.
Zeitung, 1878, pp. 115-16. It fell into his hands curiously
enough at Berlin, whither probably it had found its way, together
with other fragments, owing to the faithlessness of some work-
man. The inscription is on bronze aw pointillé, and runs thus
as restored—

[Βασιλεὺ]ς Πύῤῥοϊς καὶ]

[Ἀπειρῶ)ται καὶ τ[αὔτα] (or perhaps T[apavtivor])

ἀπὸ Ῥωμαίων καὶ [ἀπὸ]

συμμάχων Διὶ Ναϊἴῳ].
Here, therefore, we have a record of some of the spoil presented
to the Dodonaean Zeus by Pyrrhus and his allies after their
victories over the Romans in the beginning of the third century
B.c. Carapanos cites a metrical inscription from Pausanias
(i, 18, 2) which Pyrrhus is said similarly to have engraved on
spoils offered to Zeus after victories over the Macedonians.
—This completes the list of dedicatory inscriptions.?

Next on our list come the forty-five inscriptions and frag-
ments comprised in Carapanos’s ‘cimguiéme catégorie’ and
figured by him in facsimile plates. Of this number, twenty
or more will occupy our attention; the rest of the forty-five
and, as Carapanos tells us, several fragments besides, which he
has failed to connect with one another, baffle imterpretation.
These inscriptions are on plates of copper or bronze of hardly
half a millimetre in thickness. Most of them are engraved
au pointillé, some au repoussé. On almost all, as being public
documents, is impressed an official stamp by the addition of the
names of certain state dignitaries, who confer authority upon
the proceeding recorded or mark its date. And as the varying
formulae point to different stages in the political history of

1 The following, too short or frag-
mentary to call for notice in the text,
may be given here: edo on the base
of a small vase (Pl. xxiii. 7); συπο on
a fragment of a large goblet (Pl. xxiii.
8); ... alos Ait Ndw δῶρον on a square
plate of bronze (Pl. xxiv. 1); Ait Nalw

on a colander, perhaps used for sacri-
ficial purposes (Pl. xxiv. 2) ; Διώνᾳ ἐπ
on a small goblet (Pl. xxvi. 8) ; is Ala
on the handle of a vase (Pl. xxvi. 4and
4 bis); ἀλκε (1-Ξ ἀλκή) on a large ring
(PI, xxvi. 7); &c.

INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA. 109

Epirus, it will clear the way if we first examine in detail these
variations. Passing over the mythical period we find at an
early date that the Molossians were ruled by kings or chieftains
who ultimately extended their power over all Epirus. We find
Admetus in the early part of the fifth century famous for his
hospitality to the exile Themistocles: after him, about +29 B.c.,
comes his son or grandson Tharymbas or Arymbas I. The next
king mentioned is Alcetas, a contemporary of Dionysius of
Syracuse, about 385 B.c. He is succeeded by his sons Neo-
ptolemus and Arymbas IT., and at length in Alexander, nephew
of Arymbas, we reach the first who bore the title of king of
Epirus. Then follow, as kings of Epirus, the two sons of
Arymbas, Aeacidas, killed in 313 B.c. and Alcetas, killed in
295 B.c. The throne next falls to Neoptolemus at first alone
and afterwards for a short time jointly with the famous Pyrrhus,
son of Aeacidas, whose son Alexander became king in 272 B.C.
Lastly, we have the two sons of Alexander. Pyrrhus IJ. and
Ptolemy, with whose death (289-229 B.c.) the dynasty comes to
an end. Henceforward Epirus was presided over by a στρατηγός
or praetor, elected annually in a general assembly of the nation
held at Passaron. The mention then of a βασιλεύς or a
στρατηγός in these inscriptions should suffice to prove that
the inscriptions in which they respectively occur are ear! cr or
later than 229 B.c. But from an honorary decree probably
dating from the end of the fourth century B.c., in which, with
the king Neoptolemus, son of Alexander, are coupled οἱ σύμ-
μαχοι τῶν Ἀπειρωτᾶν and the προστάτας of the Μολοσσοί, it
would seem that, from the end of the fourth century at least,
the Epirotes formed a league or συμμαχία, at the head of
which stood the Μολοσσοί. Some of the decrees are granted
in the name of the Ἀπειρῶται, others in the name of the
Μολοσσοί only ; accordingly we find mention of the ἐκκλησία
τῶν Ἀπειρωτᾶν and the ἐκκλησία τῶν Μολοσσῶν. In the later
inscriptions the στρατηγὸς τῶν Ἀπειρωτᾶν and the προστάτας
τῶν Μολοσσῶν appear together ; on some however only one of
these. In some cases we have, in addition to the βασιλεύς or
στρατηγός and the προστάτας, the γραμματεὺς τῶν συνέδρων,
apparently the Secretary to the Council of the League.

With these preliminary remarks we may proceed to the

1 Pl. xxvii, 1, 77:

110 INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA.

consideration of the inscriptions. We will take first the grants
of enfranchisement and immunities.

Engraved aw pointillé on bronze is the following (Pl. xxvii. 1).
Θεὸς Τύχ[α] [ΚΊἸλεομάχῳ Ἀτιντᾶνι οἱ σύϊμμαχοι τῶν Ἀπειρωτᾶν
ἔδωκαν ἐν Ἀπείρῳ ἀτέλειαν ἐϊπὶ βασιλέως Νεοπτολέμου
Ἀλεξάνδρου] ἐπὶ πρόσταὶ Δέρκα ΜοϊἸλοσσών, καὶ ἐν-
τέλειαν.

By this document the Epirote League, in the reign of Neo-
ptolemus, son of Alexander, Derkas being προστάτας or Presi-
dent of the Molossians, granted to Kleomachos the Atintanian ?
ἀτέλεια in Epirus and ἐντέλεια. Of these two words, by which
the privileges granted are specified, the latter is new to the lexi-
con and its meaning uncertain. It occurs again together with
ἀτέλεια, ἀσφάλεια, ἔγκτωσις in the decree in honour of Gaios
Dazoupos Rennios. Εἰ, Egger (Carapanos, Dodona, ἕο. App.
p. 200) conjectures that it denotes the capacity for holding
magisterial offices. Bursian thinks that ἀτέλεια and ἐντέλεια
together are possibly equivalent to the Attic term ἐσοτέλεια,
‘immunity from the taxes and burdens of aliens and obligation
to those of burgesses.’

The mention of Neoptolemos determines within certain limits
the date of the inscription. As we have shown above, there
were two kings of Epirus bearing that name; one, the father of
Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great, reigned towards
the middle of the fourth century B.c. But he was son of an
Alcetas, and therefore cannot be the Neoptolemos of this in-
scription, who is son of Alexander. The other Neoptolemos,
who is probably the one here mentioned, reigned towards the
end of the fourth and the beginning of the third century, at
first alone and then with Pyrrhus, by whom he was put to
death about 295 B.c. As Neoptolemos is here named alone, the
inscription should be anterior to his association with Pyrrhus.

An imperfect inscription au vepoussé on copper is thus re-
stored (Pl, xxvii. 3): [Βασιλεύον]τος [Ἀλ]εξάνδρου, ἐπ) | προσ-

tata] Μολο[σσώ])ν ..... Ἀρισ[τοἹμάχου ᾿Ομφαϊ[λέος ἐπὶ
γραμ]ματέ[ος δ]ὲ Μενεδάμου | .... [ἔδ]οξε tla]? ἐκλησίᾳ (sic)
1 Obviously an error for προστάτα. may explain why Kleomachos should

2 The fact that the Atintanians were have had conferred on him honours
an outlying tribe of Epirotes and per- naturally accorded to aliens.
haps hardly regarded as part of Epirus

INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA. 111

τῶν | [Μολοσσῶν] Κτήσων εὐεργέτας ἐὼν διατελεῖ] πολειτείαν
(sic) Κτήσω | [ve δοῦναι καὶ] γενεᾷ.

In this Ὀμῴφαλέος is due to Bursian for the Ὀμφάλου of
Carapanos. Ὀμφαλέος Bursian takes to be an ethnikon, and
this conjecture better accords with the supposition that the
actual name of the προστάτας is lost before Ἀριστομάχου, which
would then be the name of the father. In Pl. xxxi. 2 (a deed
of manumission) occurs OM®AAES (Ὀμφαλεῖς); and an
Kpirotic town ᾿Ομφάλιον is quoted by Ptolemy (iii. 14, § 7),
though it is true he assigns it to the Chaones. Bursian! also
substitutes Μολοσσῶν for Ἀπειρωτᾶν of Carapanos. In what
follows the syntax halts and the Ionic ἐὼν can hardly be right.
May we read [ἐπεὶ] Κτήσων εὐεργέτας ἔϊτι ὧν διατελεῖ] κ τ.λ. ?
As regards the date of this inscription (xxvii. 3) and that quoted
in the note below (xxxii. 5), Carapanos, on the ground that the
character of the writing is less ancient than that of the decree
concerning Kleomachos the Atintanian (xxvii. 1), in which
Neoptolemos, son of Alexander, appears as king, decides that
the Alexander of the two inscriptions under consideration must
be Alexander IJ., son of Pyrrhus, who reigned in the first half
of the third century B.C., and not Alexander, son of Neoptole-
mos, brother of Olympias, who was killed in Italy about 326
B.C. But, as Bursian remarks, this inference of relative age is
unsafe owing to the difference in the kind of engraving (xxvii.
1 and xxxii. 5 being au pointillé on bronze: xxvii. 1 aw repousse
on copper), a difference quite consistent with identity of age.

Another link in the historical chain is supplied by an inscrip-
tion aw vepoussé on bronze (PI. xxix. 2); there are several gaps,
but the restorations are almost certain: [Θεὸς Tuya | Στρα]τα-
yo[dvros Ἀπει]ρω τἂν ‘Alvruvoolv Κλαθιάτου Aa |... . οπίο
ἔνι [pP, Παρμε[νίσκος | AeEdvdp[ou ποθοδΊωμα | γραψα[μέ-
νου πο]τὶ τὰν ἐκϊκλ[ησ]ίαν [Δαμάρχ]ου τοῦ Δα μέ[α]

1 His reading seems to be supported Alexander whose name is associated
by a comparison of another deed of with that of a Προστάτας of the
enfranchisement (Pl. xxxii. 5) which Molossians and a γραμματεύς of the
runs, as restored: "Emi βασιλέω]ς Αλεξ- σύνεδροι, which, in the genitive case,
[dvdpov, ἐπὶ προϊστάτα Μολοσ]σῶν may well be the missing word after

Bayaeetitste ss. sc | [γραμματεύο]ντος δὲ Mevedduov in Pl. xxvii. 3; or better,
ov[védpos]...... | [rd κοινὸϊν τῶν] perhaps, we may restore thus : γραμμα-
Mo[Aocowy] . . . . | [δίδωτι] πολετείαν τεύοντος Μενεδάμου συνέδροις.

(sic) . . . Here again we have a king

112 INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA

Ἀχαι[οῦ καὶ αἰτουμένου πολιτείαν ἔδοξε τοῖς | Ἀπειρώταις
[πολίτα]ῆν εἶμεν | [Δ]άμαρχον [Ἀχαιὸν κα[ὶ] ὅμοιον τοῖς
[ἄλλοις Ἀπ]ειρώταις.

The words Κλαθιάτου and ποθόδωμα and the symbol τῇ
(προστάτας) are restored by Bursian from the decree in honour
of Rennios which will occupy our attention shortly. [ap-
μενίσκος though probable is not so certain; the diminutive
termination -ίσκος is of frequent occurrence in these inscrip-
tions. Κλαθιάτου Bursian regards as a topographical adjective
(Κλαθιατης) of a possible locality Κλαθία. The phrase ποθόδωμα
γράψασθαι (for πόθοδον, πρόσοδον) is obviously an Epirotic
variant of the well-known classic and inseriptional phrase
πρόσοδον (πόθοδον) ποιεῖσθαι. We shall consider the question
of date below. One other fragment (PI. xxxii. 6) engraved aw
pointillé and aw repoussé seems, to Judge from the word πολυ-
te[(av], to have been a deed of enfranchisement.?

We now come to the inscriptions recording grants of προξενία
and other privileges.—According to an inscription on copper
au repoussé and au pointillé (Pl. xxxiii. 1) Theodorus, son of
Stomios, is appointed by the Molossians proxenos, and to him
and his heirs are guaranteed immunity from burdens of some
kind or other and personal protection within the limits of
Epirus both in war and peace. The text runs: [Θ]εὸς Τύ[χα |
Θε͵όδωρον Στομίου “Av|.... . θιη Μολοσσοὶ πρόξενον]
ἐποίησαν αὐτὸν καὶ [ἀ τέλειαν] καὶ ἀσφάλειαν ἐν [Ἀπείρ]ῳ
αὐτ]ῷ καὶ ἐκ[γόνοις ἔδωκαν €]u πολέμῳ [καὶ | ἐν εἰράνᾳ].

But perhaps the most remarkable of the proxenia-decrees is
the following, engraved, aw pointillé on bronze (Pl. xxviii. 2).
[Θεὸς] Tuya ἀγαθά [Ἐπὶ π]ροστάτα Λευχά]ρου, ἀφικο-
μένων ἹἹπποσθένεος, Τει χέρμωνος, Σελινίος, ἔδοξε τοῖς |
λΙολοσσοῖς προϊξενίαν δόμειν | τοῖς ᾿Ακραγαντίνοις. ΒΥ
the terms of this document the Molossians, in the year when
Leuchares was προστώτας, granted to the Agrigentines en masse
the title of Proxeni, on the arrival (in Epirus) of three persons,
Hipposthenes, Teichermon, Selinis, presumably themselves
Agrigentines. As was observed in the first number of this
journal, this proceeding is unique in the history of the proxenia.
It was there suggested (p. 237) that perhaps what is meant is

[Ἐπὶ προστάτα Μολοσσῶν 2... | ἐν Δωδ[ώνᾳ].. ||... ας ἔδωκε... ν
, γένει Θρασ΄. ..... ..-. vt πολιτείαν} . . . | rov dnfavra].. .

INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA. 113

merely something like the honorary title of fraties accorded by
the Romans to the Aedui (Caes. B. G. 1. 43; Tac. Ann. xi. 25;
Cic. Att.i.19). As might be expected in a document concerning
a Rhodian colony, we read here the infinitive form, represented
by δόμειν, so characteristic of Rhodian inscriptions.—Lastly
among the proxenia-decrees we must notice one already alluded
to of considerable interest, forming the most complete of the
inscriptions in Carapanos’s collection. It is found on p. 114,
and is the only one which is not represented in facsimile.

᾿Αγαθᾷ Toya. | Στραταγοῦντος ᾿Απειρωτᾶν ᾿Αντινόου
Κλαθιίάτου, γραμματεύοντος δὲ συνέδροις Δοκίμου | τοῦ
Κεφαλίνου Τορυδαίου, γαμιλίου ἐμ Βουνίμαις ἕκτι | καὶ εἰκάδι.
Πρ. Λύων Ἑὐρώπιοςς Ποθόδωμα γραψαμένου Λυσανία τοῦ
Νικολάου Καριώπου περὶ προξενίας Γαίῳ Δαζούποι | Ρεννίω
Βρεντεσινοῖ καὶ ἀπολογιζομένου τὰν εὔνοιαν ἃν | ἔχων διατελεῖ
ποτὶ τοὺς ᾿Απειρώτας, δι᾽ ἃς οἴετο δεῖν τιμα θῆμεν αὐτονί,
ἔδοξε τοῖς ᾿Απειρώταις πρόξενον εἶμεν αὐτὸν | Γάϊον Δάξουπον
Ρέννιον Βρεντεσινὸν καὶ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκγόνους, ὑπάρχειν δὲ αὐτῷ
καὶ ἀτέλειαν καὶ ἐντέλειαν καὶ ἀσφάλειαν καὶ πολέμου καὶ
εἰράνας, τὰ ἀπὸ ᾿Απειρωτᾶν, καὶ yas | καὶ οἰκίας ἔγκτασιν ἐν
᾿Απείροι καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τίμια πάντα | ὅσα καὶ [τοῖς ἀλλοις
προξένοις. '

The limestone tablet on which this is engraved is O"70 in
height by O”70 in breadth: the surface occupied by the
inscription measures 040 by O”68.

We may translate thus :—

“Antinoos of Klathia (ἢ) bemg Strategos of the Epirotes,
and Dokimos, son of Kephalinos, of Toryde (7), being Secretary
to the Synedri, on the 26th of the month Gamelios according to
the local calendar at Bunimae (7).

“ Prostates, Lyon of Europus.

“Whereas Lysanias, son of Nicolaos, of Caropus, made appli-
cation concerning provenia on behalf of Gaios Dazoupos Rennios
of Brundisium ; and whereas he set forth the good will which
the aforesaid Gaios continues to bear towards the Epirotes,
through which he was of opinion that Gaios ought to have
honour conferred on him: it was resolved by the Epirotes
that the said Gaios Dazoupos Rennios of Brundisium should
be proxenos—himself and his heirs—and should enjoy immunity

H. S.— VOL. II. i

114 INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA.

from burdens and the right of holding office (?) and security both
in war and in peace, as far as depends upon the Epirotes, and
the right of holding land and house property in Epiros and all the
other privileges as many as are accorded to the other proweni.”
Several points here call for notice. First of all the mention
of Antinoos as Strategos limits the date to the first third of
the second century B.c. We learn from Polybius (xxvii. 13, 7 ;
comp. xxx. 7, 2; and Livy xlv. 26) that he was a cotemporary .
of Perses, king of Macedon. Under these circumstances the
round form of the letters € and C for ε and o is certainly sur-
prising, and the more so if this Antinoos is the same as the Anti-
noos of the Damarchos-decree (Pl, xxix. 2), noticed above, which
should therefore belong to about the same date. We have already
suggested an explanation of Κλαθιάτου and ποθόδωμα γραψα-
μένου, which were restored in the Damarchos-decree. With
regard to Τορυδαίου Bursian conjectures that it may be an
ethnikon of Τορύδη (4), a collateral form of a well-known
Epirotic name Τορύνη (Bursian’s Geog’. von Giriechenland i.
p- 28). The words γαμιλίου ἐμβουνίμαις ἕκτι Kal εἰκάδι
obviously denote the day of the month. In γαμιλίου for
γαμηλίου we have only another form of the Attic Γαμηλιών,
though it does not of course follow that the Attic and the
Kpirotic month coincided. At any rate, we learn at least one
month of the hitherto unknown Epirotic calendar. Unless
yaucriov and ἕκτι are merely engraver’s mistakes for γαμηλίου
and ἕκτῃ, it is possible that the ὁ for ἡ and 7 may point to a period
in which the pronunciation of « and ἡ was becoming assimilated.
Bursian at first considered ἐμβουνίμαις to be a dialectical equiva-
lent of ἐμβολίμοις (sc. ἡμέραις), but afterwards, on the suggestion
of Dr. Ludw. Weniger, thought the reference might be to the
calendar of an Epirotic town Bunimae (or Buneima): ef. Steph.
Byz. s.v. Βούνειμα and Τραμπύα. The name Avav Εὐρώπιος
is preceded by the symbol γῇ, which Carapanos is probably right
in explaining to denote προστάτας, though elsewhere it is the
abbreviation for πρέσβυς or πρεσβύτερος. The dative in -o«
(Δαζούποι, Βρεντεσινοῖ, ᾿Απείροι) from O- stems beside the
normal -ῳ is remarkable. We have met datives like Ναΐοι, τοί,
in other of the Dodonaean inscriptions. Similarly in two
inscriptions of the Elean dialect differing considerably in
antiquity we have examples of this form, as αὐτοῦ (= αὐτῷ) in

INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA. 115

the Damocrates-decree discovered at Olympia (Cauer 116), and
perhaps δάμοι (= δάμῳ) in the older Elean and Chaladrian
Treaty found at the same place (Arch. Zcit. 1877, p. 196). The
adjective Βρεντεσινός is found also in C. J. G. 5784 (cf. 5783).
ἀπολογίζομαι is used in precisely the same sense as here in a
Spartan inscription (W. Vischer, Epigr. wu. archéiol. Beitr.
aus Giriechenland, 1855 p. 138; Cauer, Delectus No. 5) where
also in the words πόθοδον ποιησαμένου we recognise a variant
of our ποθόδωμα γραψαμένου. For the genitive in δε as we
should certainly have expected δ ἂν. Among other marks of
peculiarity may be noticed the absence of augment in o/ero, the
demonstrative αὐτονί and the infinitive forms.

The deeds of manumission, to which we next turn, generally
begin with the form of invocation, ‘God: Fortune’; then after
the name of the προστάτας Μολοσσῶν or the στραταγὸς
᾿Απειρωταν (which however are sometimes added at the end)
come the names of the manumitted slaves, and the manumitting
inaster or mistress with the formula ἀφίητι (ἀφῆκε, adievte)
ἐλεύθερον (ἐλευθέραν, ἐλευθέρους), the freedom conferred being
sometimes expressly continued to descendants. Then follows a
list of the witnesses, and since local names are generally coupled
with them we can add to our knowledge of Epirotic towns and
districts. The texts shall now follow in order with such remarks
as may be necessary. Except where otherwise pointed out they
are all on bronze and au pointillé.

Pl. xxx. 1. [Θ]εὸς [Tv] ya ayaa Bo.... Φορμίονος Eyevixa
Ἂμ... Φλεύχω ἐλευθέραν ddier[te αὐτοὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ
τῶν ἐκγόνων αὐ]τὰν καὶ γένος ἐκ γενεᾶς .... [Φορμί]σκος καὶ
Δαμναγόρα τελ.... | ὠντι καὶ Φορμίσκος ἡ Βα... .. | πεισθαι
ὅπᾳ Ka θέλη... Ἑσλαγόρας Batédw....| dos Ὁπλαῖνος
Mog πττ: [Οπ͵λαξνος Σιμίας Κελα....

It seems useless to attempt restorations of the missing portions
of this inscription; all we can gather is that a certain man
(2 Βοΐσκος, Cf. Pl. xxx. 4), son of Phormion and Echenika,
probably his wife, manumitted from servitude to themselves or
their heirs Phleucho, herself and her kindred sprung from the
heirs of her body, 1.6. the race descending from her own children.!
At the end after an unintelligible portion follows a list of

1 This explanation of the words γένος Ridgeway, who compares the gradation

ἐκ γενεᾶς is suggested to me by Mr. αὐτὴ, γενεά, ἔγγονοι, in Pl. xxxi.
12

116 INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA.

witnesses. Φορμίονος for Φορμίωνος may be due to the
same inadvertence which produced Δωδοναῖος on another
inscription. The reading ’Eodayopas (1... ᾿σθλαγόρας ; οἴ.
ἑσλός for ἐσθλός in the Inscr. from Olympia, A7ch. Z 1876,
Tab. 6, n. 2, |. 5) is due to Bursian, who also suggests that the
following BATEAQI should be read Bateatos, from the Cas-
siopian town Βατίαι (Strab. vii. p. 324). ‘Ozdaitvos, too, seems
to be the adjective of a place-name.

Pl. xxx. 2, Ἐπὶ προσστάτα (sic) Μολοσσῶν Κεφάλου
Πείαλος ἀφῆκε ἫἩραζκ] λείδας Σώπατρο[ν] | Τοίμαχον
ἐλευθέ[ρ οἹυς καὶ αὐτοὺς κ[αὶ ἐκ]γόνους. Μάρτ[υ!ρ]ες Πελέων
Xepa....|....¢ ᾿Αἰγέχασς Mev... νὸς Δαμοίτας X.... |
....6pos Θεύδοτος X....| .... dp0g Πολύξενος |... . aocos.

In the year when Cephalos was προστάτας, Pialos, son of
Herakles, freed Sopatros and Toimachos, themselves and their
descendants. Among the witnesses Θεύδοτος is of course for
Θεόδοτος. If the Cephalos here is the same man as the
general of that name who fell fighting against the Romans for
the independence of Epirus (about 170 B.c.), the inscription
may be assigned to the first third of the second century B.C.

Pl. xxx, 4. ᾿Αγαθᾷ Tuya | Στραταγοῦντος ᾿Απειρωτᾶν
᾿Ανὶδρονίκου Ὑγχέστου ἀφῆκε | ἐλευθέραν Φιλίσταν Nei|
κανδρος ᾿Ανεροίτα Ταλαιίὰν ἄτεκνος. Μάρτυρες Δόκιμος
Βοΐσκου, Evpuvovs Δέρκα, ᾿Αντίοχος Μενεϊφύλευ (sic), Αν-
δροκος Νικομάχου, Ταλαιᾶνες, Bolicxos Νεικάνδρου 'Οποῦϊος.

According to this document a woman named Philista is
freed by Nicandros, son of Aneroitas, a Talaianian, he being
without issue. There appears to be no mention in history of an
Andronicus, son of Hynchestus ; and the same remark applies to
the name Lysanias in the next inscription. The places indicated
by the adjectival forms TaXasav, Οποῦος (or ᾽Οποϑος) are new
to geography: Carapanos is inclined to connect the former with
the Tadapes of Strabo (ix. p. 434); the latter resembles that
of the Locrian Opus. As we have the normal genitive in -ouv,
Μενεφύλευ is probably the engraver’s error. Ἄνδροκος seems to
be a variation of the name ᾿Ανδρόκκας in Pl. xxvii. 2.

Pl. xxx. 5. ᾿Αγαθᾷ Tuya. Στραταγοῦντος ᾿Απειρωτᾶν
Avoavia Καρώπου | Ilpoorarevovtos Μολοσσῶν ‘Eyedaov |
Ilapwpov, ἀφῆκε Ἀντίβολος Νικάνορος Δοϊσστος ἐλεύθερον |
᾿Ανδρομένη τὸν αὑτοῦ | [ἄτεκνος ὦν: Μάρτυρες Ἀγέλαος

INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA. 117

᾿Ατίοχου (sic), Λυκόφρων | (Art)voyov, AéEavdpos Κεφάλου,
CAVENGLOS Wourdient. ἐκατου, Κολπαῖοι.

Antibolos son of Nicanor, being childless, manumits Andro-
menes his slave. Autibolos is described as Δοέσστος and the
witnesses as Κολπαῖοι. Of the corresponding towns we know
nothing. With the former Bursian compares the Macedonian
Διέσται and Ορέσται ; the latter may come from a Κόλπαι or
Κόλπη, a form like the Amphilochian Ὄλπαι or Ὄλπη.
Ἀτιόχου is more probably a mistake than a variant of Ἀντιόχου.

Pl. xxxi. 1 (like the following Pl. xxxi. 2) presents a mixture
of letters inscribed and aw pocntillé. 1t is too fragmentary for
translation, but deserves notice for the proper name ᾿Αμύμνων and
for the form Fecéuvs which may be an (imperfect) proper name.

Pl. xxxi. 2? is also much mutilated. The formula of manu-
mission is here slightly varied. Certain persons give freedom to
[τ]ὰ ἴδια σώματα γυναι[κῶν] (not yvvai[«ds] as Carapanos reads
it) ais ὀνόματα Ditow. ... Perhaps Φιλωμένα ; in the form
Φιλουμένη it is not uncommon in inscriptions: comp. also the
Philumena of Terence. The place-name Ομφαλεῖς (OMPAAES)
which occurs twice in this fragment has been mentioned before ;
it is in both cases joined with Μολοσσοὶ and Χιμώλιοι. The
negligence of the engraver appears in Μολοσοί and Χιμόλιοι.

In Pl. xxxi. of Carapanos are given two fragments of copper
numbered 2 and 3, which Rangabé (Arch. Zeit. 1878, p. 117)
cleverly saw to belong to the same inscription. No. 4 forms the
left side of the original document, and the first line of No. 4 is
continued on to the second line of No. 8. The text as restored
by Rangabé (Arch. Zeit. 1879, p. 118) is as follows—

Θεῴ. Αγαθῇ | [Τύ]χη. Βασιλεύονϊ τος.
τ αὐτο |... Kou d€ Awuvavdpo[u ..JAa...

. ἀπέδωκ]εν A... |... λις Κανθάραν ἐλ[ευθ]έραν εἷ-
vat αὐτάν] τε [καὶ] γενεὰ[ν] [τὸν ἅπαϊ]ντα χρόνον" μὴ ἐξέσστ[ω

V...* far... .| προστατεύοντος .. ax... (KA]eomarpa 11. . Los
Sasupie! ao Myla. ὦ Menelaney *Ovo- via Iona ~Ophanes Χιμό![λιοι}..
mépvov....| .... Tov ᾿Αμύμνων [τ]ὰ ἴδια σώματα γυναικῶν. .. apa
Act[avdpov]... |... φίητι Feidus... αἷς ὀνόματα Φιλωμ |. . . ava ἐλεύθερα.

τ νρμῆμε aby Εἰ δὶ. . [Μάρτ]υρες Mdpr|[upes]. . . [Π]αυσανία, “Ἕκτωρ
Ξ . | TéeAwy... 1... os Εὐρώπι[05] ᾿Ανδρ]. . . . [ἝΠ]κτορος, ᾿Αλκι[βιάδης]

i arn = ΩΣ, eh Se Nim Apglaol ss. lignan «

2. ta oma... |... mpw...| [Μ]ενελάου Μολοσοὶ (sic) |... [Ὄμφα-

. ovr. ..| ... [{ἀγα]θᾶ Τύχᾳ | Ales Χιμώλιοι.

118 INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA.

5 δ᾽ ἐφάπτεσθαι KalvOapas μηθένα καταϊδουϊλούμενον καὶ
πάσας (3}) Κρατεραίου θυγα τέ
pas εἶναι ἐλ]ευθέρας. εἰὰν δὲ τις ἐφάπτηται αὐἸ)τᾶς ἢ
τᾶς γενεᾶς,
A > \ Ἃ 338 \ , \ , \ \ ͵
ἢ αὐτὸς ἢ ἡ] yevea, γινέσθω κατὰ νόμον καὶ τοὺς ν]όμους
τῶν ἐφα-
΄ \ , , ΄ » 3 /
πτομένων Kal καταδουλουμ]ένων μήτε κτήματα ἀλλα | ἐχέ-
τωσαν αὐτοὶ καὶ γεῖν 5
ea, τὰ δὲ κτήματα ἔστω]σαν (1) ἢ αὐτᾶς Κανθάρας | [ἢ
γε]νεᾶς ἢ ἐγγόνων
Oe eke Ἰκηται.

All we can gather from the document as restored, is that ἃ
certain Kanthara is manumitted, safeguards beg appended
together with directions concerning the disposition of property
belonging to Kanthara and her kin. In line 3 ἀπέλυσἼ]εν seems
better than ἀπέδωκ)]εν. On the expression ἢ γενεᾶς ἢ ἐγγόνων,
compare what has been said above, Pl. xxx. 1. The inscription
as shown by the word Βασιλεύοντος dates from the regal period,
and is therefore older than the second half of the third century
B.C., unless, indeed, the word Ἀμυνάνδρου can be referred to
Ἀμύνανδρος, the name of a king of the Athamanes who played
a leading part among the peoples of Epirus at the beginning of
the second century B.C. Compare Strabo ix. 4, 11: ᾿Αθαμᾶνες
δ᾽ ὕστατοι τῶν ᾿ηπειρωτῶν εἰς ἀξίωμα προαχθέντες, ἤδη τῶν
ἄλλων ἀπειρηκότων, καὶ wet Ἀμυνάνδρου τοῦ βασιλέως δύναμιν
κατασκευασάμενοι ; also Diod. Nic. ΧΧΧΊΙ. 20. -

Besides those already noticed there remain three or four
inscriptions in which the formula ἀφίητι ἐλεύθερον, &e., is
replaced by the word ἀπέλυσεν (ἀπέλυσαν). The freedom,
moreover, appears to be consequent upon a &erixn κρίσις or
ξενικὴ λύσις. We will examine the longest of these more in detail.
It is given on Pl. xxvii. 2, and according to Rangabé’s corrections
of Egger’s text (Arch. Zeit. 1878, p. 116) should be read and
punctuated as tollows—

᾿ΑπέΪλυσαν Τρύπωνα told. Eevi-

kla[? κρ]ίσει" Θ[ε]όδοτος, Ἀλεξίμαχος
Σαμύθα, Γάμιθος. Zévus μάρτυ-

pes’ Μολοσσῶν' Ἀνδρόκκας Δωδω-

ναῖος, Φίλυπος Δωδωναῖος, Φιλόξενος Aw-
δωναῖος, Δραῖπος Δωδωναῖος, ᾿Αγίλαιος Δω-

INSCRIPTIONS ,.FROM DODONA. 119

dwvaios, Kpaivus Φοινᾶτος, Ἀμύνανδρος Aw-
δωναῖος" Θρεσπωτῶν οἵδε" Δόκιμος Λαρισσαῖος,
Πείανδρος ᾿Ελεαῖος, Μένανδρος Τιαῖος, Ἀλέξα-
νδρος Τιαῖος, Δείνων Θοξουχάρου, Φίλιππος]
Φίλων ᾿Ονόπερνος. ᾿Επὶ προστάτα Φιλοξ-
ένου ᾿Ονοπέρν[ου Διὸς] vaov! Διώνας.

The characters point to the fourth century B.c. A certain
Trypon is manumitted by the verdict of four (or if Σα[μἼυθα
is a genitive, three) judges or arbitrators, Theodotus, Alexima-
chos, Gamithos. The text after these words presents some
difficulties, but Rangabé’s punctuation goes far to remove them,
if Ξένυς is taken (not as Egger takes it, for a nominative plural),
but for a dative plural. ‘The case is decided by a ξενικὴ κρίσις,
that is, according to the forms appropriated to suits between
aliens, which also received the name δίκαι ἀπὸ oupBorov.?
Bursian, indeed, remarks with regard to the restoration ξενικᾷ
κρίσει that in xxxii. iv.® the letters ξενεικαιίλυσι are to be divided
ξενικᾷ λύσι (not ξένε Kai Λυσιμ[άχῳ] as Carapanos reads), and
in xxxil, 14 ἐλυσει is to be expanded to [ξενικα]!ῖ λύσει. And
in fact in the present inscription ἕενικὴ λύσις might very well
mean a λύσις or mManumission resulting from a ἕξενικὴ κρίσις.
But the « of [kp]icec is plain on the copper plate. In what
follows, Rangabé’s punctuation and reading (Zévus for Ξένοις)
gives a simple sense. ‘For the aliens the witnesses are, of the
Molossians, Androkkas the Dodonaean..... ἄς. ; of the Thes-
protians, Dokimos the Larissaean..... &¢.’ The concluding
words appear to mean ‘In the year of oftice of Philoxenos son

of Onopernos, Prostates of Zeus Naios and Dione.’ Lines 4-11

1 Better Ndov, i.e. Natov. améAu[cev] . . . | [ξενικα]ῖϊ λύσει τριω

3 Egger however (to whom the re- . |... (ἐπὶ) προστάτα πολιτ εἰας]
storation ξενι[κ]ά{[{ κρ]ίσει is due) takes Φειδολάου. Mép|[T]upes, ~Apuevos,
the view that the ξενικὴ κρίσις corre- ᾿Αλέξανδρος, ᾿Ανδ. .. |... Φειδυλ
sponds exactly to the ξενικὸν δικαστήριον aevs... Ao... | AwmoiAvos... os
of Pollux (Onom. viii. 63), a body of | KéAaus. With this reading Cara-

judges or ordinary citizens invited from
without to decide in cases where local
tribunals were held to be inadequate
from excess of business or partiality.

3 Θεὸς Τύχα. Ὑμένιος Avofavia]. . .
| tova Ἕρμων Πτολεμαίου] .... | ξενικᾷ
λύσιμ... . | Μάρτυρες, ᾿Αγέλ[αος]. .. |
- + + Atotor Aapos... |

We 2a - Μενελάου] . hei) ace των ὃν

panos’s “λυσείτριον, perhaps a local
synonym for λύτρον,᾽ disappears. Ran-
gabé (Arch. Zeit.1 876, p. 118) suggests
[ἐπ]; λύσει τριῶν μνῶν] and Πολιτ he says
is obviously the beginning of the name
of the Prostates. (Comp. Dem. /. L.
394, where the ransom of a hoplite is
given at from three to five minae.)

120 INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA.

contain the names of witnesses or perhaps public advocates
assigned to aliens at the expense of the state. Seven were
Molossians, the remainder, probably also seven, were Thes-
protians. Θρεσπωτῶν for Θεσπρ. is an obvious error of the
engraver; so also Φίέλιπος and perhaps οἵδε for τοίδε. If
Ὀνόπερνος in line 11 is, as Rangabé thinks, a mistake for
᾿Ονοπέρνου, Philippos and Philon may have been two brothers,
sons of Onopernos and brothers of the Prostates, Philoxenos.
It was not uncommon in Greek families for brothers to have
the first element in their names common. Among the μάρτυρες
Μολοσσῶν six are Dodonaeans, and a seventh, Kpaivus, is styled
Φοινάτος ; the same ethnikon occurs in Pl. xxix. 3. Probably an
Epirote district is meant. Certain Thesprotians, again, are
characterised as Λαρισαῖοι, whence we learn of a hitherto un-
known Thesprotian Larissa. The ’EXeatos following may be a
citizen of Elea, on the modern bay of Phanari; the two Traitor
should come from an unknown Thesprotian locality, Tia. Tle¢-
avépos, if not an engraver’s mistake, is obviously the equivalent
of Πείσανδρος.

An inscription, which as regards its subject stands alone,
records the purchase of a slave. It is inscribed aw povntillé on
copper, and is given on Pl. xxix. 3. Θεὸϊς Τύ]χα Ματυδίκα |
Tlo[AvE]evov ἐξεπρίατο | [ἀπὸ Δ]αμοξένας μνᾶς | [ἀ]ργυρίου.
Μάρτυρες | Ἀλεξάνωρ, Fattidas |... . οπαῖος, Εὐκλείδας, |
[ἐπὶ vaidpyou Μενεχάρ) μου], ἐπὶ προσστάτα (sic) Mon |
[λοσσ]οῦ Ἀγέλλυος | Φοί[ν]ατοι. A slave, it seems then, was
worth a mina. The word farriéas adds one to the few instances
of F in the Dodona collection; this letter and the general
character of the inscription may perhaps assign it to the fourth
century B.c. The date of our inscription is apparently marked by
two eponymous officers. The first is Menecharmos, the Naiarch,?
a word which can hardly mean anything else than director of
the Naia or games in honour of Ζεὺς Naios. The second officer
is Agellys, ‘ Molossian Prostates,’ a remarkable variation; from
the usual ΠΙροστάτας Μολοσσῶν.

Pl. xxxii. 3° is noteworthy only from the mention of an
ἀγωνοθέτης as eponymous. His function was probably that of

1 Comp. Αὐταγαθίδας and Αὐτοκρατί- 3... ν ἀγωνοθε[τοῦντος]. .. | PAv]-
das'on an inscription mentioned p. 106, δρομάχου. .. |. .. τῶν Θεσπρωτ[ῶν]}
above. εἶν, CARS roth NOTION VED ἡ το

* The form vatapxos could not come exar... Comp. also pl. xxv. 2

from vads as Bursian supposes, (above, p. 106).

INSCRIPTIONS FROM DODONA. 121

superintending the festival of the Naia, but it is not clear what
was his relation to the Naiapyos. That the office survived to a late
period seems to follow from the mention, in an inscription (Carap,
p. 158) copied by Cyriac of Ancona at Jannina, of an ἀγωνοθέτης
Διὸς Νάου καὶ Διώνης, P. Memmius Leon, who was also ἱερεὺς
Σεβαστῶν and ἀγωνοθέτης μεγάλων ᾿Ακτίων Καισαρήων, in the
68th Aktias (240 A.D.).

From Pl. xxxiii. 2+,we learn that the Epirotes granted the
right of intermarriage ([ἐ]πυγαμί[ αν) to some community whose
name is lost. If the restoration [δόμε]εν is right, it may have
been the Agrigentines (cf. xxvii. 2, p. 112).

Lastly, we have to notice an inscription recording a deed of
donation of certain properties. It is engraved on copper au
pointillé, and is found in Pl. xxix. 1. Carapanos’s text, which
begins Θεὸς Τύχα ai cipmalxor] δίδωτι, is unsatisfactory
throughout, and is condemned at once by the faulty syntax of
the opening words. The text has been restored with some
success by Rangabé (Arch. Zeit. 1878, p. 117). He reads: Θεὸς
Tixa | [tT]a συμμ[αχίᾳ)] .... | diate [γᾶν κ] αἱ τά ἐπιπό-
λα[ια] | ἅπαντα' ἄρουραν ay Kooow | λειμῶνα ἐπ᾽ | Adepias
ἀμπέϊλους παρ᾽ Kota |: οἰκόπεδον. [ἐπὶ mpootta (sic) |
[Μν[άσωνος | [Κε]λαίθου.

‘God: Fortune. (The town Dodona 7) gives to the League
certain land and all that is found upon it; a field at Kossos; a
meadow near Atherium ; vines adjacent to Kotas (or Kotaion,
Korai[@]); a homestead. In the year of office of Mnason, son
of Kelaithos, Prostates. Thus ΑΓΚΟΣΣΩΙ, ΕΠΑΘΕΡΙΩΙ,
NAPKOTAI, are probably not names of persons, as Carapanos
thought, but names of places preceded by a preposition. The
mention of the Prostates shows that the document is a decree of
the Molossians, whether emanating from the κοινὸν τῶν Μολοσ-
σῶν or from a single town, eg. Dodona. The absence of the
name of the grantors may be accounted for by supposing that
this decree is one of a series in which ἁ πόλις τῶν Awdwvaiwv
or a similar formula has been written once for all.

E. S. ROBERTs.

1... oes τύχα... .. [ἔδοξε τοῖς colts]. . . [ἐ]]πιγαμί[αν»]. . . | σάλος
ΑἸ] πιρώταις (sic)... [δόμε]ιν ad- ες... [ἄλλος . . . [ἐπὶ π[ροστ[ἀτα]..

122 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

TuE ftraveller from Athens who desires to visit the Boeotian
Orchomenus proceeds thither on the turnpike-road by way of
Eleusis, Thebes, and Lebadeia. He leaves Athens by descending
the Hermes Street, turning to the right nearly opposite to
the Theseum, and passing on the left the magnificent ancient
funeral monuments at the Hagia-Trias as well as the Dipylum,
and other vast ruins brought to light in the adjoining excava-
tions. He soon passes to his left the Botanical Garden, enters
(18 minutes) the vast plantations of olive trees, and sees at a
distance of half a mile to his right the hill of Colonos, which
has been rendered celebrated by Sophocles, and on which are
the sepulchres of Charles Lenormant and Karl Otfried Miiller.
Τὴ the grove he successively passes three arms of the river
Kephissus, which are nearly always dry ; among the olive trees
there are several to which the famous Athenian botanist, Th. von
Heldreich, ascribes an age of more than 1,500 years. It is
probable that for some distance from its issue from the olive
grove (20 minutes) the present road is identical with the
ancient sacred road, for we see there the little chapel of St.
George, apparently on the site of a temple on the ancient road-
side ; a number of excavated rock-cut tombs, which border the
road, can leave almost no doubt in this respect. But at the
foot of the conical hill of Poikilus, at the entrance of the defile
(20 minutes), the sacred road appears to have turned to the
right, whilst the modern way turns to the left. The defile is
bordered on the right by Mount Icarus, on the left by Mount
Corydallus (that is, lark, Alauda cristata), which latter is
crowned by a tower and ruined walls. On the left, in entering
the defile, we see in an excavation foundations of large stones,

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 123

which mark the famous sepulchre of the Hetaera DPythionike,
excavated in 1855 by General Vassoignes. This monument,
which is described by Pausanias! as the most remarkable and
most magnificent of all ancient Greek tombs, was—according to
-him—erected by the Macedonian Harpalos in honour of Py-
thionike, with whom he had fallen so deeply in love that he
had made her his lawful wife.

This pass, which is easily defensible, forms the direct approach
to Athens from the Peloponnesus, and it was, therefore, very
important in antiquity from a military point of view. From
the summit of the defile (20 minutes) the traveller enjoys, in
looking back, a splendid view of Athens, the plain, the Piraeus,
and the surrounding mountains. The road descends thence by
a gentle slope to the Monastery of Daphné, which is situated in
a pretty dale and is partly in ruins. In the walls of the church,
as well as in the surrounding walls, may be seen a vast number
of squared blocks of marble, which have evidently belonged to
some Hellenic building, doubtless the temple of Apollo men-
tioned by Pausanias.2 But probably this sanctuary did not
stand on the site of the monastery, but a little higher up, to the
left of the road, where we now see the remains of a Byzantine
chuich. In a vault below the narthex of the church of the
monastery, the tombs of the French dukes of Athens have been
discovered by Buchon. By the side of the monastery we see
the remains of a thick wall, which once defended the passage.
On leaving Daphne the road goes along the left border of the
ravine, which commences here and becomes gradually deeper.
The sacred road followed the right-hand border of the ravine, tor
we see it there in many places cut into the rock. The ravine
soon becomes less profound, the valley more narrow; the road
then emerges into a narrow valley planted with olive trees and
bordered by the sea, which forms here a large gulf, and in which
we see at a short distance the island of Salamis. To the right
of the road (90 minutes) we see the temple of Aphrodité Philé,
of which the foundations are partly extant; it was erected in
honour of Philé, wife of Demetrius Poliorcetes, and was leaning
on the rock in which we see many niches. In front of this
temple Pausanias mentions a remarkable wall of unwrought
stones. The ruins of this wall, which was of the so-called

1 Pausanias, 1. 7, 5e 2 Idem.

124 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS,

Cyclopean masonry, are still extant, and some of the large
boulders are still in situ.

A large house in ruins, formerly the khan of Scaramanga
(15 minutes), which is on the sea-shore close to the road, marks
the half-way between Athens and Eleusis. We see thence in
the gulf the two little Pharmakoussae islands, now called
Kyradhes or the Megali and the Mikra Kyra, on the largest of
which was shown in antiquity the tomb of Circé.! Further on
the road is cut in the rocks of the shore and identical with the
sacred road. On leaving the rocks (10 minutes), we see to the
right a small plain occupied by the first of the two salt-lakes of
Rheiti (Ρεῦτοι), whose waters were supposed by the ancients to
come from the channel of Euboea. One of them was sacred to
Demeter, the other to Persephoné ; the priests of Eleusis alone
had the privilege of fishing in them. The sacred road may
easily be traced in the rocks around the first lake, and probably
also went around the second, whilst the modern road follows
the sea-shore. Immediately after the salt lakes the traveller
passes the Eleusinian Kephissus and enters the fertile Thriasian
Plain, so called from the demus of Thria; it extends all along
the gulf from the Rheiti salt lakes to Eleusis ; it is protected by
the mountains of Salamis against the south winds, whilst the
chain of the Cithaeron protects it on the west, the chain of
Parnes on the north, and the mountains Corydallus and Icarus
on the east side. The island of Salamis, which is now a bare
rock and cannot feed its 700 or 800 inhabitants, most of whom
gain their living on the mainland, seems to have been a fertile
island in antiquity, for it could boast of 20,000 inhabitants and
even of a river anciently called Bokarus or Bokalia in Strabo’s
time ; from the abundance of its pine forests its ancient name
was Pityussa.?

Between the Kephissus and Eleusis the traveller sees on the
road-side a number of ancient ruins, the first of which (15
minutes) to the left seem to mark the Herdon of Eumolpus, the
mythic founder of the Eleusinian mysteries; then (15 minutes)
a hillock covered with fragments of a marble sepulchre,
identified by some as the tomb of Strato, by others as that
of, the hero Hippothoon. Further on (30 minutes) to the left
is the monumental bridge built by Hadrian over the Kephissus

1 Strabo, ix. p. 395. * Strabo, ix. p. 394.

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 125

but now covered by the alluvium of the river. Fr. Lenormant
partly excavated it in 1863. Afterwards (15 minutes), at the
entrance of Eleusis, the site of the temple of Triptolemus is
marked by the church of Hagios Zacharias. Eleusis, now
vulgarly called Elefsina, was the birthplace of Aeschylus, and
is thought to have derived its name from the advent, ἔλευσις:
of Demeter. It owed its celebrity to the temple of Demeter
and Persephoné and to the mysteries celebrated in honour of
these goddesses, which were considered as the most sacred in
Greece. The temple was built on the eastern extremity of a
rocky height which runs parallel to the shore, and is separated
to the west by a small plain from the slopes of Mount Kerata.
The site of the temple had been artificially levelled, and above
it was the acropolis. The city occupied the triangular space
which extends between the hill and the shore. The temple of
Demeter was, according to Strabo, the largest in Greece ; its
plan was made by Ictinus the architect of the Parthenon. On
the north side are two sacred inclosures and two successive
Propylaea; the former are preceded by a dilapidated pavement,
in the midst of which we see the foundations and some other
remains of the temple of Artemis Propylaea. The first
Propylaea are an exact copy of those of the Acropolis of
Athens. The Propylaea of the second inclosure are much
inferior in size to those of the first; they were built by Appius
Claudius Pulcher in the very year of the battle of Pharsalia.
These edifices were excavated in 1860 by Fr. Lenormant at the
cost of the French Government.

The great temple of Demeter proper is still covered by the
houses of the modern village, but it will now soon be excavated
by the Archaeological Society of Athens, the Greek Government
having succeeded in purchasing gradually all the houses, and
having allotted to the villagers on the sea-shore the necessary
land to erect new dwellings. Leaving Eleusis the carriage-road
follows the plain in a north-west direction until (1 hour) the
village of Mandra is reached; it then mounts a well-wooded
and very picturesque gorge, and reaches (1 h. 30 m.) the khan
of Palaeo-Kundura situated in a lonely vale. Further on
(1 h. 30 m.) a height is reached, whence the summits of
Mounts Hymettus and Pentelicus can be seen beyond a first

' *Castellum, quod et imminet, et circumdatum est templo,’—Livy, xxxi. 25.

126 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

mountain range. The road again descends and enters a
valley, which extends to the west and passes, near the little
village of Mazi, a Hellenic tower supposed by some to mark
the site of the ancient Oenoé. The road enters another cul-
tivated gorge and reaches (30 minutes) the khan of Casa, at
the foot of Mount Cithaeron, near one of the principal sources
of the Eleusinian Kephissus, at a distance of 4 h. 30 m. from
Eleusis. Close to the khan are barracks of gendarmes. Just
in front of it, on a steep rock, is the ancient fortress of Eleu-
therae, now called Γυφτόκαστρον, of which His Highness the
Hereditary Prince Bernhard of Saxe-Meiningen has lately
published an excellent plan with a good dissertation, This
fortress marked the limit of Attica and Boeotia, and defended
the defile of the Cithaeron ; it belonged to Attica, but was not
comprised among its demes, hence its name. It is 1,200 feet
long, its greatest breadth is 330 feet; the walls, which con-
sist of excellent Hellenic masonry 8 feet 8 inches thick, are
flanked with protruding square towers whose walls are 5 feet
5 inches thick, It had seven gates, whose opening measures
4 feet 6 inches below and 4 feet at the top. This is no doubt
the best preserved fortress in Greece.

From the khan of Casa tie road mounts in zigzags up to the
summit of Mount Cithaeron, which is overgrown with piues,
whence its present name Elatia. This mount is the theatre of
ancient legends, among which that of the exposure of Oedipus
is the most celebrated. The carriage-road descends thence to
the north into the great plain, and after having passed (1 ἢ.
20 m.) the bridge over the Asopus, it leaves to the right, on a
sort of triangle formed by that river, the supposed site of the
fortified camp of Mardonius. Thebes is reached in 3 ἢ. 30 m.
from the khan of Casa. The present city which occupies the
Cadmeia, is most decidedly the most filthy and disgusting city
in Greece; I strongly advise travellers rather to establish their
night quarters in the meanest village barn than in the so-called
hotel at Thebes. No ruin of an ancient monument has been
preserved in Thebes ; only some fragments of sculptured marbles
which we see here and there in the housewalls and a few scat-
tered drums of marble columns testify to the ancient splendour
and gpulence of the city. Quite surprising is the scanty
accumulation of ancient débris here, which seems to have only

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 127

in one place a depth of ten feet, and generally only amounts to
two or three feet. On other ancient sites ancient potsherds at least
are found which have some value to archaeology, but here
nothing that even a fanatical archaeologist would care to pick up
was found when some years ago the new streets were cut through
the soil down to the virgin rock. But if the accumulation of débris
is but very insignificant in the Cadmeia, there is no accumula-
tion of délris at all in any direction outside of it, so that it is
impossible to say ou which side or sides of the Cadmeia the
lower city may have extended. The ancient city together with the
Cadmeia was forty-three stadia in circumference, but as it com-
prised in its area the suburbs with their gardens it was not less
than seventy stadia.' Homer? mentions only ὝὙποθῆβαι, the
Cadmeia having been destroyed by the Epigoni, and probably
not having been yet rebuilt in the poet’s time.

The road from Thebes to Lebadeia (4 h. 30 1m.) is devoid of
interest ; it leaves Thebes on the north-west side, passes an arm
of the Ismenus, goes along the heights which separate the plain
of Thebes from that of Leuctra and Plataea, and crosses the
Tenerian Plain (τὸ Τηνερικὸν Πεδίον) comprised between the
last spurs of Helicon and Mount Sphingios, or Phoenikios (now
called Phaga), on which the legend of the Sphinx is localised.
On the last spur of Sphingios there are some remains of Hellenic
masonry, which probably mark the site of Onchestus. Further
on the road runs along the swamps of the Lake of Copais, at
the foot of the chain of Helicon; it passes to the right of an
ancient tower, further on the village of Mulki, the rivulet
Kephalari, and after that the site of Haliartus, one of the towns
of the ancient Boeotian confederation, which was destroyed by
Xerxes ; but having been rebuilt it counted among the principal
cities of Boeotia. It was in ruins in the time of Strabo and
Pausanias. It covered the plateau of a hill which rises hardly
more than fifty feet above the Lake of Copais, but all that
is now to be seen of it are the remains of a wall of poly-
gonal blocks, some rock-cut tombs, and masses of scattered
wrought stones. There is no accumulation of débris, and, there-
fore, u0 excavations can be made. A small rivulet, which gushes
forth from the north side of the rock, runs into the swamps of

1 Bursian, Geographie von Griechen- STisnie O00.
land, vol. i. p. 225, Leipzig, 1862.

128 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

the Copais. The road next passes the khan of Siakho and
then the ruins of Coronea, which are left on a height at a short
distance to the left. The road runs afterwards along the foot of
Mount Laphystion with vast swamps to the right, until at last
the fertile plain and the town of Lebadeia are reached. This
city was, according to Pausanias, built by the Athenian Lebados
below the ancient Homeric city of Mideia, of which some
scanty remains still seem to be extant. But the present Lebadeia
is not identical with the Lebadeia of classical times, whose site
is marked by an isolated hill at the point where the river
Herkyna reaches the valley. It was celebrated for the famous
oracle of Trophonius, which was consulted by Croesus and
Mardonius, and which still enjoyed a high reputation in the
time of Plutarch and Pausanias. The present city is built ina
picturesque situation, at the foot of a steep rock crowned with
the ruins of a castle of the middle ages, and at the entrance
of a wild mountain-gorge, from which the river Herkyna bursts
forth. On entering the gorge we see immediately to the right
in the vertical rock very numerous vestiges of the oracle of
Trophonius, as, for instance, a great many niches of various
sizes, also a chamber of cubic form measuring ten feet in each
direction; the ceiling is slightly cut in the form of a vault;
to the right and left are benches cut in the rock, and there are
marks of the chamber having once had a door; on both sides of
the chamber are niches, no doubt for cavotos. This chamber is
cut out in the vertical rock at a height of about six feet above
the ground. There is also a passage 3 feet 4 inches broad, 2 feet
2 inches high, which is said to lead to a chamber containing
a cistern and a door on the opposite side. But this can hardly
be the real entrance to the oracle, which from the description
of Pausanias,! and according to the most reasonable conjecture,
may be looked for within the lower walls of the modern castle,
on the top of the very rock which contains the niches and the
cubic chamber, where the accumulation of débris is about
twenty feet in depth. It might, therefore, be easily excavated.
My honoured friend, Professor A. H. Sayce of Oxford, who
accompanied me to Orchomenus in April last, and assisted me
in my labours there, called my attention to a shrilling sound,
not unlike the cry of some kind of bird, which is heard every

Lr bee

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 129

minute or so repeated in two different places in the narrow
gorge, about 150 yards beyond the oracle of Trophonius, and he
asked me whether these sounds may not have had something to
do with the origin of the oracle. They must be produced by
some of the water of the Herkyna rushing through underground
channels ; but then it is astonishing that the sound should be
in the two places exactly alike. The gorge contains several
natural caverns, and its aspect is so striking, mysterious, and
awe-inspiring, that I can only compare it with the gorge at the
top of which the Styx issues on Mount Cyllene in Arcadia.
Beyond the gorge to the left we see in the vertical rock a long
cavern containing a chapel, to which there is no other access
than by a lift attached to strong chains. Very remarkable are
the marble quarries in and immediately beyond Lebadeia, in
which all the blocks for the ancient monuments at Orchomenus
and probably also those for the edifices at Chaeroneia and other
neighbouring cities have been cut. Through the decomposing
influence of the air this marble presents a white colour, but in
breaking off apiece one sees that the fracture has a blackish
colour. Lebadeia is said to have been under the Turkish
dominion the most flourishing city in Northern Greece, and to
have had 1,500 houses. It has decayed much since the War
of Independence, and there are many houses in ruins, but still
it is a city of about 5,000 inhabitants, and it presents an aspect
of wealth and cleanliness. Accommodation for the night may
be had at the khan, but the master of the police, Mr. Loukides,
will never allow foreigners, and particularly Englishmen, to
take up their lodgings anywhere else than at his house, where
he treats them with bountiful hospitality. I express here my
warmest gratitude to this gentleman for all the disinterested
services he has rendered me during my excavations at
Orchomenus in 1880 and 1881.

The distance from Lebadeia to Orchomenus in an air-line is
hardly more than four miles, but the many windings of the
road make it nearly seven miles. The traveller has to proceed on
horseback, as the turnpike-road from Lebadeia to Lamia can
only be used for half the way to Orchomenus. This road leaves
Lebadeia on the north side, crosses the Herkyna (15 min.), and
then turns to the east between Mount Thurium and the river
which bends to the south-east. Having reached (1 hour)

H. §.— VOL. II. K

130 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

the last spur of Mount Thurium, the traveller leaves the
carriage-road and proceeds by a zigzag footpath across the
swampy fields, passing at least a dozen very narrow wooden
bridges, having to his left the villages Rhomaico and Arapokhori. |
When near the former he perceives at some distance to the
north-west a conical tumulus, and he passes another perfectly
similar one near the village of Skripu. Both these tumuli,
which exactly resemble the so-called heroic tombs of the
Troad, are called here Magula, which I took for a corruption of
the Russian word for tomb, ‘mogila,’ the more so as the o is
pronounced as an a. But Mr. Eustratiades, the Ephorus of
Antiquities in Greece, tells me that ‘magula’ is an Albanian
word meaning a female breast, and he thinks the tumuli have
got this name from their breast-like form. Colonel Leake? holds
the tumulus near Skripu to be a monument of the battle between
Sylla and the forces of Mithridates under Archelaus. At last
(1h, 25 m.) the traveller passes the Kephissus by a long stone
bridge of Turkish masonry, and enters the dirty village of
Skripu, where for a day or two accommodation may be had at
the monastery of the Θεοτόκος, of which Father Theodosius is
the pious and hospitable prior (ἡγούμενος). Skripu, which has
about 110 houses, is built partly on the rocky base of the
southern spur of Mount Hypantheion (Hyphanteion), which is
nothing else than the west-north-west slope of Mount Acontion,
partly in the plain on the bank of the Kephissus, where, after
having flowed along the southern side of Mount Acontion, it
turns its course from east to north-east, and thence north into
the marshes of the Lake of Copais. Not unlike many other
Greek cities, Orchomenus occupied the triangular slope of a steep
hill (Mount Hypantheion) at its rise from the plain ; and it pos-
sessed, as Colonel Leake* remarks, in perfection those advantages
of position which the Greek engineers generally sought for,
being defended on every side by precipices, rivers, and marshes.
Mount Hypantheion terminates to the west-north-west, and just
in front of the Acontium is its culminating point, which is a
rock about 120 feet in diameter and of nearly circular form.
This rock was occupied by the acropolis, built of large well
wrought blocks, the walls of which ate more or less preserved.

1 Travels in Northern Greece, ii. 2 Travels in Northern Greece, ii.
p. 148. p. 145.

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS, 131

At the northern angle is a ruined tower, and some traces of an out-
work may be discerned beyond a ditch which runs parallel to the
north-west side, and is cut in the rock. This acropolis is reached

-α- -- ---- 5..------ γε-ος- “ἐς, Sn Serene ete ao

\\
nz \
Hh 2 ~ Wy, a
| ait Ὁ Sa \ ‘Gy. = ὴ
! ZA ἢ ye ~ Oo UE ξ5-:8ὶ
WING Ἔκ 3 2 Sag
| a TEE oe pe}
lg Ἢ ὦ ἢ Ὁ". eo -—£ g& §f
= za 5 oo i
ΝΜ": ge Ef GS =
ih My ὅς! ae «Ὁ
<= SS 3 ΤᾺ ~ £2, .
it <a AS Ge Oe
ih SP fet eh i
ε Ξ Ν x |
= By ems So
ap ἧς SR
ed C00 Ξ Bi Ι i th | ! |
7S i if Ἰ Mh |
Wa, | " | ii | |
N m - τ ΟῚ aN off H| | ' | Ϊ |
"" Poy δ Aff | i} | | |
RG = fy (il |
SES aw ἯΙ " | | | |
Zt ee <i Ι i | MN
Gin Wi | AHN i
WLIO) of}!
Shes UAE
me sie? πῃ ALC

by an oblique flight of forty-four steps, six feet wide, which is

cut out of the rock, and afterwards by a flight of fifty steps of

the same dimensions. All the stones of this castle bear evident
K 2

132 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

traces of having been worked with iron pickaxes. This cireum-
stance as well as the general character of the masonry does
not, I think, admit of the supposition that the castle might be
older than the Macedonian period, and this is also the opinion
of Professor Sayce, It certainly appears that the ancient
Minyeian Orchomenus did not extend so far, because in the whole
castle we failed to perceive a single stone which might claim
a high antiquity. As may be seen by the map on the preceding
page, this castle has only a small and narrow approach,
between walls which for the last 200 yards are nearly parallel
and not more than twenty or thirty yards asunder; these walls,
which are pretty well preserved, consist of polygons well fitted
together; but as the latter likewise bear evident marks of
having been worked with iron picks, we do not feel authorised
in attributing to them a higher antiquity than that of the castle,
the less so as the walls would have no raison détre without
the castle. If they have been made of polygons it was probably
only in order to impart to them greater strength and solidity,
In these walls are several doors and gates, one of which is larger
than the rest, and has a tower behind it.

The continuation of the southern wall, which Colonel Leake
could trace with scarcely any intermission through a distance of
three quarters of a mile, has now disappeared; Professor Sayce
could find but a few isolated traces of it; but he has been able
to trace through a distance of half a mile the continuation of
the northern wall, intersected by many towers, of which, how-
ever, only part of the foundations remain. One of these towers
is remarkable, because it is just below the wall which I
have partly excavated, and which runs across the Hypan-
theion from north to south, and appears to have been the
fortification-wall of the Minyeian Orchomenus on the west
side; this seems the more probable as a sort of moat may be
traced for some distance on its western side. A little to the
west of the afore-mentioned tower is a vertical cavern, about sixty
feet deep, from the foot of which bubbles forth one of the
sources of the river Melas, now called Mavropotami, synonyms
derived apparently from the dark colour of its transparent
waters. The rocks round about the upper end of the cavern are
artificially cut, apparently for the foundations of a building, and
it seems very likely to Professor Sayce and to me that here

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 133

once stood the temple of Heracles, which according to Pausanias
was erected at the sources of the Melas, which forms a lake
and runs into the Kephissus.1 It is true that Pausanias adds
that the temple cf Heracles is at a distance of seven stadia
from Orchomeunus, but this is in contradiction with his statement
that it is at the sources of the Melas, and further in contra-
diction with Plutarch, who tells us, in the Life of Sylla, that the
Melas rises beyond Orchomenus.

Of the city wall on the south-west, south, and south-east sides,
which Leake still saw at the beginning of our century, no trace
is left. The remains of a large bridge of huge rudely-wrought
boulders may still be seen in the Kephissus, directly south of
the ancient city. Strabo? remarks that the Orchomenus of his
time was thought to stand on a different site from the more
ancient city, the inundations of the lake having forced the
inhabitants to retire from the plain towards Mount Acontion.
This opinion certainly appears to be corroborated by the posi-
tion of the treasury outside the city walls seen by Leake, for it
cannot be conceived that Minyas could have placed it so. It
is, therefore, very probable that in the height of its power, the
ancient city may have extended as far as the banks of the
Kephissus. This appears the more likely as the monastery of
Skripu, which stands about midway between the treasury and
the Kephissus, occupies the exact site of the temple of the
Graces, for the marble pedestal consecrated to these deities,
which is now in the church, was found in an _ excavation
made on the spot. This temple was built of large blocks of
sandstone, and it appears to have been demolished for the
sake of building the monastery, in the walls of which, and
particularly in those of the church, may be seen the most
varied specimens of the temple’s building material, namely,
pavement-blocks, bases of columns, and a very large mass of
drums of columns, all of sandstone.

According to Pausanias, the temple of the Graces was very
ancient, the cultus of these deities having been instituted by
Eteocles, son of Andreus, or of the Kephissus, for whom they
had fallen from heaven in the shape of rude pieces of rock.
Pausanias adds that artistically sculptured statues of the
Graces were only put up in his time, and that idols of

1 Pausanias, ix, 38. 2 Strabo, ix. p. 416.

134 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

these goddesses in the shape of rude stones were held in the
highest veneration.*

The idea involuntarily occurs to us that these heaven-fallen
rude pieces of rock are probably meteorie stones. In honour of
the Graces were celebrated the Charitesiae, games of poets and
musicians, which attraeted numerous crowds from all parts of
Greece, Asia Minor, and Magna Graecia.*

The first mention of Orchomenus is found in the Jlied,? where
Achilles rejects the offers made by the king of Mycenae, rich in
gold: ‘Even if he offered me ten and twenty times more than
what he now possesses and what he may still obtain, even if he
offered me all the gold hoarded up in Orchomenus or in Egyptian
Thebes, where large wealth is stored in the houses.’

The city was ealled the Minyeian Orechomenus on account of
its king, Minyas, and his son and successor, Orchomenus.*
Perhaps owing to his great wealth, Minyas is said by Pausanias
to be the son of Chryses (probably from χρυσός, gold). Pau-
sanias goes on to say: ‘Minyas had such large revenues that
he exceeded in wealth all men before him; he was, so far as we
know, the first who built an edifice to store his treasures. Now the
Hellenes have a passion for admiring more the remarkable things
in foreign countries than in their own ; in fact, distinguished
writers happen to give a most minute description of the Egyptian
Pyramids, whilst they make not the slightest mention of the
treasury of Minyas or the walls of Tiryns, which are not less
marvellous.’® Further on Pausanias states: ‘The treasury of

1 Paus. ix. 34 and 38, the tradition of the former power and

2 0. Miiller, Orchomenos und die Min- wealth of Orchomenus.
yer, pp. 177—186; Clarke, Travels, ti. 5 Pausanias, ix. 86: Πρόσυδοι δὲ
p. 152. ἐγίνοντο τῷ Μιμύᾳ τηλικαῦται μέγεθος
3 ix, 879--- 8582 : ὡς ὑπερβαλέσθαι τοὺς πρὸ αὐτοῦ πλούτῳ-
οὐδ᾽ εἴ μοι δεκάκις τε καὶ εἰκοσάκις θησαυρόν τε ἀνθρώπων ὧν ἴσμεν Μινύας
τόσα δοίη, πρῶτος ἐς ὑποδοχὴν χρημάτων φκοδομή-
ὅσσα τέ οἱ νῦν ἔστι, καὶ εἴ ποθεν ἄλλα σατο. Ἕλληνες δὲ ἄρα εἰσὶ δειμοὶ τὰ
γένοιτο, ὑπερόρια ἐν θαύματι τίθεσθαι μείζονι ἢ
οὐδ᾽ ὅσ᾽ ἐς ᾿ρχομενὰν ποτινίσαεται, τὰ οἰκεῖα, ὁπότε γε ἀνδράσιν ἐπιφανέσιν
οὐδ᾽ ὅσα Θήβας ἐς συγγραφὴν πυραμίδας μὲν τὰς παρὰ
Αἰγυπτίας, ὅθε πλεῖστα δόμαις ἐμ Αἰγυπτίοις ἐπῆλθεν ἐξηγήσασθαι πρὸς τὸ
κτήματα κεῖται. ἀκριβέστατον, θησαυρὸν δὲ τὸν Μινύου

4 Tliad, ii. 511: οἱ δ᾽ ᾿Ασπληδόνα καὶ τὰ τείχη τὰ ἐν Τίρυνθι οὐδὲ ἐπὶ
ναῖον ἰδ ᾿Ορχομενὸν Μινύειον, See also βραχὺ ἤγαγον μνήμης, οὐδὲν ὄντα ἐλάτ-
Pindar, Ol. xiv. 4, Thucydides, iv. 76, τονας θαύματας.
and Strabo, ix. p. 414, who confirms

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 135

Minyas, which is a wonderful work, second to none in Greece
or elsewhere, is built in the following manner: it is a round
stone building, whose summit forms rather an obtuse point; it
is said that the upper stone holds the whole edifice together.’?

It is therefore evident that when Pausanias visited Orcho-
menus,” the treasury was still entire. It was of beehive form
and much like the so-called treasury of Atreus at Mycenae.
As it had been half demolished and the remainder buried
beneath thick layers of earth and débris, so that only the upper
part of the gate was visible, it made on nearly all travellers
‘the impression that it had been entirely destroyed with the
exception of the gate, and so it is, for instance, described in the
guide-book of Emile Isambert? as well as by K. O. Miiller,*
who adds: ‘Of the Orchomenian treasury nothing is left but a
large marble slab, supported by two upright walls, which was
assuredly the entrance to the ancient building” But even
Colonel Leake® seems to have had no idea of the extent
of the ruins of the treasury, for he says: ‘Some ruins, which
have every appearance of having belonged to the treasury, are
found to the eastward of the lower wall.’

But attempts have twice been made to excavate the ruins;
the first time at the beginning of this century, as Colonel Leake®
tells us, by the artists employed by Lord Elgin, ‘ who were, how-
ever, deterred from making much progress by the huge masses
of stone which presented themselves, and which they had not
the means of removing.’ The second attempt to excavate it
was made in 1862, by the late demarch of Skripu, Gadakes,
who intended to use the marble blocks for building a new
church, though the village was already blessed with two

lix, 38: Θησαυρὸς δὲ 6 Μινύου,
θαῦμα ὃν τῶν ἐν Ἑλλάδι αὐτῇ καὶ
τῶν ἑτέρωθι οὐδενὸς ὕστερον, πεποίηται
τρύπον τοιόνδε: λίθου μὲν εἴργασται,
σχῆμα δὲ περιφερές ἐστιν αὐτῷ, κυρυφὴ
δὲ οὐκ ἐς ἄγαν ὀξὺ ἀνηγμένη" τὸν δὲ
ἀνωτάτω τῶν λίθων φασὶν ἁρμονίαν
παντὶ εἶναι τῷ οἰκοδομήματι.

2 It is difficult to determine when
Pausanias visited Orchomenus, for he
lived under Hadrian (see i. 5) and
the two Antonines (see ii. 27, viil 43,
x. 84). The latest date given in his

work is the year 174 A.D.; we find it
by adding the 217 years, which the
Periegete reckons from the restoration
of Corinth to his time, to the year
44 5,6. or 710 of Rome, the date of
that restoration.

3 Ttinéraire de V Orient, Paris, 1873,
p. 181.

4 Orchomenos und die Minyer, p. 235.

5 Travels in Northern Greece, 11.
p. 148.

6 Travels in Northern Greeee, ii.

p. 148,

136 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

churches, each of which is large enough to hold all the in-
habitants, not only of Skripu, but also of the neighbouring
village of Petromagula. He had already destroyed the whole
dromos aud taken out the slabs, some of which were so large that
the pious man could cut a column out of each of them, and was
just going to destroy the great gate, when happily his vandalism
was reported to the Minister of Public Instruction at Athens,
and stopped. Strange to say, the gate has made on all
visitors, and even on so distinguished a traveller as Colonel
Leake,} the impression that it is of white marble; but most
decidedly it consists, like all the rest of the treasury, of the
above-described blackish marble cut in the quarry of Lebadeia.
I excavated this treasury in November and December, 1880,
in company with my wife. We found at once that Lord
Elgin’s attempt to excavate it had failed merely because he had
begun the excavation from the gate, where, of course, the diffi-
culties of removing the stones were very great. Thus it is not
astonishing that his exeavation in the dvomos before the treasury
did not even reach the great threshold. But we have to con-
eratulate ourselves on his non-success, for the marble slabs
contained in the treasury ought to remain in it, and their removal
would have been a great loss to science. By excavating sys-
tematically from above, and not beginning to remove any débris
through the gate until we had brought it to light to half its
height, we had no difficulty at all with the large blocks, which
we merely moved as necessity required, from place to place, until
we reached the floor of the treasury, on which we put them
up in groups on their narrow sides so that they can easily be
seen, and do not impede the free passage of visitors. On
account of the slopes, up and down which the délris had
to be carried, I could employ here neither horse-carts nor
wheelbarrows, and could remove the earth only ἴῃ baskets,
which were carried by two labourers. My instruments for
working consisted of crowbars, pickaxes, shovels, and broad
hoes, which are excellent for filling the baskets. I employed
from 100 to 121 labourers, about one-half of whom were women,
who work here fully as well as the men, but can, of course, only
be employed for carrying the débris in the baskets. About two-
thirds of the labourers were Greeks, the rest gipsies, called here

1 Travels in Northern Greece, ii. p. 149.

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 137

Γύφτης, Γύφτισσα, who are all Greek-Christians, lead a sedentary
life, have adopted the manners, customs, and superstitions of the
Greek peasantry, and sometimes intermarry with them. The
daily wages were three drachms (2s.) for the women, and four
drachms (2s. 8d.) for the men.

The accumulation of earth and débris in the treasury was, on
an average, thirty feet deep; it consisted of black earth about
six feet deep, followed by very large masses of smaller and
larger stones, which must have lain on the outside of the
horizontally and vertically curved blocks of which the building
was composed, and can have had no other purpose than to keep,
by their lateral pressure and ponderous weight, these latter in
their position. Below these layers of stones, which must have
fallen when the large treasury was destroyed, and the large
blocks were taken out for building purposes or to burn into lime,
I found sixty to eighty of these large blocks, which appear to
have escaped the spoilers’ hands, and probably could not be
taken out easily. Below these large blocks I found successive
layers of ashes and other burned material, perhaps the residue
of sacrifices, on an average twelve feet deep. On the smoothed
rock I came upon a large number of perfectly rectangular
marble slabs as well as cornices, which can have had nothing
to do with the treasury itself, and must have belonged to some
sort of monument—perhaps a sanctuary—which once stood
within it. The cornices vary from between 3 feet 7 inches
long and 1 foot 7 inches broad to 3 feet 4 inches long and
broad; all of them have on one side, in several instances
also on two sides, deep grooves made for cramps, which
have been so carefully taken out that there is no trace
of them left in any of the grooves, and it is, therefore,
difficult to say of what metal they consisted. But most
probably they were of iron, because I found on the floor
of the treasury two pieces of rusted iron whose form can
leave almost no doubt that they served as fastenings for the
marble, and if so, the sanctuary can hardly belong to a higher
antiquity than the Macedonian time. This period is fuither con-
firmed by acuriously sculptured marble slab, 2 feet 6 inches high,
2 feet 101 inches broad, and 7 inches thick, of which I here,
under No, I., give a drawing made by Professor E. Ziller;
it is very remarkable for its birdlike ornamentation in high

138 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

relief, To about the same time seems also to belong a mutilated
draped female statue of white marble, of which the legs, the
arms, and even the head are missing; it is 3 feet high, 2 feet
broad, and 1 foot 6 inches thick. I found here besides, standing
on the floor below the burned material, a sort of altar of blackish
marble, 1 foot 114 inches broad and long, and 1 foot 11 inches

high, having a quadrangular hollow 1 foot 84 inches broad

ἘΞ SSS =
——=—— a = =
SSS 5 ==
SSS ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ = : ᾿Ξ ΞΞ
SSS ==
= =

No. J].—MARBLE SLAB.—Scale 1: 10.

and long, and # inch deep. 1 found also, below the burned —
material, some marble pedestals, one of them 2 feet 6 inches
long and broad, and 1 foot 11 inches thick, with holes on the
upper side for the bronze objects which were fastened to them ;
on one of the pedestals we see the marks of feet, and, therefore,
this at least must have been the pedestal of a statue. I also
found here two small marble columns, both about 7 inches

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 139

high, and 5 inches thick, one of which resembles the column
which we see in low relief between the two lions above the
gate of the acropolis of Mycenae. I may further mention
a horse-hoof of marble, perhaps a votive offering; an Ionic
capital; several plates of crumbling marble, one of which, 2
feet 4 inches long, 1 foot 8 inches broad, has an engraved spiral
ornamentation ; several hand millstones of trachyte, one of them
with incised lines crossing each other; a hand and sandalled foot
of a statue of white marble; a slab of marble broken on the
left side, with the inscription :—

.. EIQHPATEAEIA

which Professor Sayce holds to be the end of an hexameter. I
found besides a murex, some astragali, boar tusks, whorls of
stone and terra cotta; larger disks of slightly baked clay, with
a tree impressed on each side; a vase-cover of glass, apparently
Roman, with a knob; also a large number of the bronze nails
by which the bronze plates were fastened to the walls; also
several fragments of blocks of marble containing such nails,

I further found in the treasury masses of both hand-made
and wheel-made monochrome prehistoric pottery, mixed
with painted pottery like the Mycenian, as well as later
Hellenic, and even Roman pottery. The presence of the
latter is easily explained, the treasury having evidently been
open in the Macedonian, and certainly in the Roman period.
But the prehistoric pottery, of which I shall have to speak
hereafter, was probably contained in the débris with which
the treasury was covered on the outside, so as to appear
subterraneous, and it fell into the building when it was
destroyed.

Like the so-called treasury of Atreus at Mycenae, this
Orchomenian treasury consists of regular horizontal courses of
blocks. Of the eight lower courses, every block is still in its
place; of the ninth course there remain only eight blocks zn sitw
and just as many of the tenth, whereas of the eleventh course
there are only four, and of the twelfth only three in their place.
All these blocks are of the same blackish marble as the gate.
The treasury rests on the well-smoothed, hard limestone rock
and is turned nearly due south with a very slight inclination to
the east. The shape may be seen from the subjoined plan; it is

140 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

13 metres 84 centimetres = 46 feet 11 inch in diameter from
south to north, and 14 metres ‘05 centimetres = 46 feet 10
inches from south-west to north-east and from west to east.
This treasury is, therefore, smaller by three feet and some
inches than the treasury of Atreus at Mycenae, which is fifty
feet in diameter. In the two lowest courses the blocks are, in

|
|
|
Ι
la
|
!
|
Ι
|
|
|
\
\

ENTRY.
PLAN OF TREASURY,

general, larger than in the succeeding ones; I measured in the
lowest course one block 5 feet 2 inches long, by 1 foot 104 inches
thick ; another 4 feet 2 inches long, 1 foot 10 inches thick ; in
the second course one 5 feet 8 inches long, 1 foot 10 inches
thick ; in the third course one 3 feet 7 inches long, 1 foot 83
inches thick; in the fourth course I measured one block 5 feet

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 14!

4 inches long, and 1 foot 4 inches in thickness; in the fifth
course, one block 3 feet 2} inches long, 1 foot 4 inches thick ;
in the sixth course one block 2 feet 11 inches long by 1 foot ὃ
inches thick ; in the seventh course one block 1 foot 10 inches
long by 1 foot 5 inches thick; in the eighth course, one 3 feet
3 inches long, 1 foot 4 inches thick; another 38 feet 9 inches
long, 1 foot 4 inches thick. It is a very remarkable fact
that, as in the above-mentioned treasury at Mycenae, from the
fifth course (inclusive) upwards, every stone has a hole with the
remnants of a bronze nail. Only the eighth course makes an
exception, because here every stone has a concave hollow, 2
inches to 24 inches in diameter, and about half an inch deep, in
the centre of which is invariably a hole with the remains of a
bronze nail.

The height of the gate is 5 metres 51 centimetres = 18 feet
4? inches, its width is at the top 2 metres 47 centimetres = 8 feet
23 inches, at the bottom 2 metres 71 centimetres = 9 feet 2 inch.
It is therefore of about the same proportions as the gate of the
treasury of Atteus, whose height is 18 feet and whose width is
8 feet 6 inches at the top, and 9 feet 2 inches at the bottom.
This gate is roofed by a marble slab well cut and polished, which
is 5 metres = 16 feet 8 inches long, 2 metres 22 centimetres = 7
feet 5 inches broad and 0°96} centimetres = ὃ feet 24 inches thick,
and thus quite out of proportion. It is small as compared with
the slabs which span the gate of the great treasury at Mycenae,
one of which is 274 to 29 feet long, 17 feet broad and computed
to weigh approximately 300,000 English pounds.’ I call the
attention of visitors to the concave or rather oval hollow, which has
been cut out of the great block which roofs the gate of the Orcho-
menian treasury on each side of the outward surface of the two
upper ends; as the edges are broken off it appears that they were
made to protrude in the shape of horns. There can be no doubt
that as in the treasuries at Mycenae, the courses of masonry above
the gate were shaped into the form of a triangular niche whose
purpose was to bear up the weight which would otherwise have
pressed on the lintel. But this niche has disappeared here along
with the courses of masonry by which it was formed. Very remark-
able is the threshold of the gate, which is 9 feet 2 inch long, 3
feet 2 inch broad, and consists of two superposed well polished

1 See my Mycenae, Plate ΤΥ.

142 _. EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

slabs. I give here on the scale of about 1: 65, a drawing of this
remarkable threshold, and call attention to the curiously shaped
grooves and hinge holes, which prove that there were double fold-
ing-doors. These latter, as the smallness of the hinge-holes leads
us to conjecture, were of bronze, and they remind us of the gates
plated with bronze belonging to an Assyrian temple discovered
by Mr. Hormuzd Rassam at Balawat. The entrance to the
treasury is 5 metres 29} centimetres = 17 feet 8 inches long,
and the great folding doors were about its middle, the threshold
being at a distance of 6 feet 9 inches from its inner, and 7 feet
10 inches from its outer end. At this latter point commenced
the dromos proper, which, as already mentioned, was completely
destroyed in 1862 by the late demarch of Skripu. His devasta-
tion of the dromos has been so complete that, were it not for
one stone on the east side, close to the entrance, which he has

TY μξ

JME

it

THRESHOLD OF TREASURY,

forgotten to take out, it would be impossible to say how broad
it was ; but this stone makes it easy to compute that its breadth
must have been 18 feet. From the threshold the levelled and
smoothed rock extends for 21 feet, slightly sloping, in the
dromos; but then it falls off abruptly. At this point, therefore,
must have commenced the pavement of the dromos. In ex-
cavating the dromos for about a hundred feet, I struck at half
that distance a large number of marble slabs, which seem to
have belonged to the pavement of the dvomos and to have been
left there by the demarch. Almost in the centre of the treasury
we see in the smoothed rock a hole 9 inches deep, 15 broad,
and 19 long, which may have served for fastenmg some
monument,

Among the many remarkable marble slabs found in the
treasury there is one to which I call the visitor’s very special at-
tention, for by its peculiarly curved shape and general appearance

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 145

as well as by the round hole, nearly three inches in diameter,
which is conspicuous in it, it seems to be the keystone before
referred to, which is mentioned by Pausanias as holding the
whole building together. I have put it up immediately on
entering the treasury to the right.

Travellers who have visited the treasuries in Orchomenus and
Mycenae are at a loss to explain the admiration of Pausanias in
the one instance and his silence in the other, for the marble
alone of which the Orchomenian treasury is built could of course
not have induced him to assert that there was nothing more
wonderful either in Greece or in any other country, and to
compare it with the walls of Tiryns and the Pyramids of Egypt.
Τὸ has been thought, as for instance by Colonel Leake," ‘ that the
extravagance of the latter comparison is brought down to a
reasonable level by the former; and was probably suggested to
Pausanias by a peculiarity in the Orchomenian treasury, in
which it appears to have differed from that of Mycenae, namely,
that the former was not subterranean like the latter, and con-
sequently that its exterior form resembled, in some measure,
that of the Egyptian Pyramids. A subterranean building or
construction of this kind, when formed on the side of a hill as
at Mycenae, presented from without little more than an entrance
into the hill between walls ending in a doorway; whereas the
description of the treasury of Minyas as rising to a swmmit not
very pointed, seems evidently to imply that it was not hidden in
the earth. But these suppositions of Colonel Leake and others
are altogether erroneous, for, as all visitors can convince them-
selves with their own eyes, all the marble blocks of which the
treasury of Minyas is composed are well wrought and polished
on five sides, and the only side on which they are not wrought
but left perfectly rough is the outside, which circumstance goes
far to prove that this treasury, like its brethren at Mycenae, was
destined to be subterranean. ‘This is, moreover, proved by the
masses of stones on the outside of the courses of slabs, which,
as above explained, could not have been heaped up there with
any other intention than to keep, by their ponderous weight,
all the stones of the circular layers of masonry in their position.
The principle of this construction is that of an arch-shaped

1 Travels in Northern Greece, ii. p. 150.

144 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

wall resisting a great superincumbent weight, and deriving its
strength and coherence from the weight itself.

Our most remarkable discovery was a tha/aios in the treasury,
and on its east side. It is approached by a small corridor,
9 feet 4 inches long, 7 feet 2 inches high and 5 feet broad,
preceded by a most remarkable door, of which I give a drawing.

Door oF THALAMOS,

This door, which is 6 feet 32 inches high, 3 feet 8 inches
wide above, and 3 feet 11 inches below, is formed by the
four lower courses of blocks, Its threshold, of which I pre-
sent a drawing, is 1 foot 3} inches broad; it forms to the

THRESHOLD OF THALAMOS.

right on the inner side a projection nearly 5 inches broad, and
18} inches long, with a round hole for the door-hinge 14 inch
deep, and 4 inches in diameter; in the same direction there is
in the block which spans the door a hole 4 inches deep and
3 inches in diameter. On either side we see in the threshold
three quadrangular grooves, the innermost 2 inches deep, 4,45
inches Jong, and 24 inches broad; the following 14 inch deep,

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 145

4,4, inches long, and 2} inches broad; the third, 1 inch deep,
} inches long, and 44 inches broad. On the right side in the
door is a quadrangular hole, 2 inches deep, 3 inches long, and
1 inch broad. We further see on the right side an incised
linear ornament, 5 inches broad, 5 feet 10 inches long. On the
left side this ornament is repeated, but in a more elaborate way,
and intersected by some 30 concave grooves, about ὁ inch in
diameter, which no doubt must once have been filled with
bronze. The marble slab which roofs the door is 9 feet long,
2 feet 4 inches thick, and has once been surmounted by another
slab, of which some remains are still visible. The former has
three series of holes, sometimes single, sometimes in clusters of
four together, sometimes in the centre of concave grooves; in
nearly all of these holes we see the remains of bronze nails.

In the same way, as the engraving denotes, we see on
either side of the door three rows of such holes, There can
be no doubt that all the bronze nails which we see in the slabs
from the fifth course upwards once served for fastening the
bronze plates with which the whole interior of the building
was decorated. In fact we know from the testimony of
ancient authors that the Greeks in remote antiquity orna-
mented their buildings in this manner, for in no other way
can we explain the bronze houses and chambers which they
mention. Thus we read in Homer :?

Ὥστε yap ἠελίου αἴγλη πέλεν ἠὲ σελήνης,

Δῶμα καθ᾽ ὑψερεφὲς μεγαλήτορος Ἀλκινόοιο,

Χάλκεοι μὲν γὰρ τοῖχοι ἐρηρέδατ᾽ ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα,

"Es μυχὸν ἐξ οὐδοῦ" περὶ δὲ θρυγκὸς κυάνοιο.
Further, the palaces of the immortal gods on Olympus must have
been thought to be also ornamented with bronze plates, because
Homer says:? Διὸς ποτὶ χαλκοβατὲς δῶ. We also read in
Pausanias:? Ἄλλα δέ ἐστιν ᾿Αργείοις θέας ἄξια' κατάγαιον
οἰκοδόμημα, ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸ δὲ Hv ὁ χαλκοῦς θάλαμος, ὃν Ἀκρίσιός ποτε
φρουρὰν τῆς θυγατρὸς ἐποίησεν.

Thus it is certain that in a remote antiquity polished metal
plates were employed to give both splendour and dignity
to the houses of the rich. Of the bronze plates which once

1 Odyssey, vii. 84A—87. shin, 28:

2 Tl, i, 426.

H. 8.—VOL, I. . I

146 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

decorated the Orchomenian treasury I found a number of
fragments, but together with these a good deal of melted bronze
spread on the ground, which seems to indicate that the plates
were melted by the spoilers in the treasury itself. But the door
leading into the thalamos was differently ornamented from the
walls, nay, the immense number and the variety of the nail-holes
all around it seem to testify to its particular splendour, and to
the importance of the thalamos itself.

The end of the entrance to the thalamos was barred by a
portion of the slabs of greenish calcareous schist (griinlichem
Kalkschiefer) with which the chamber was roofed and which
are covered with sculptures. This ceiling seems to have fallen
in only about eleven years ago under the pressure of the super-
incumbent weight, because all the villagers agree that at that
time the earth suddenly gave way with a great noise precisely
on the spot above the thalamos, and a deep hole was then formed.
Owing to the winter rains and the cold which had set in, I could
not remove the enormous mass of earth which covered the
thalamos during the first period of my excavations, and was
thus forced to delay the work until March 1881, when I accom-
plished it in company with Professor A. H. Sayce from Oxford,
the director-general of antiquities in Greece, Mr. Panagiotes
Eustratiades from Athens, and my wife. I made the excavation
above the thalamos on an average 50 feet long and 40 feet broad;
but this excavation proved to be too large, for on the north side
I brought to light the rock at a depth of 21 feet and for a space
30 feet long, 24 feet broad. On the south side the excavation
was 14 feet deep, 20 broad, and 27 long. Here I brought to
light the whole of the thalamos, and could minutely examine
its architecture. The chamber is cut out in the calcareous rock
on the north, east, and south sides, and this is also partly the
case on the west side, which faces the treasury. On the north
side the rock vertically cut rises 6 feet, on the east side 3 feet,
and on the south side 1 foot 11 inches above the slabs which
roofed the thalamos. On the north, east, and south sides, as
well as on the west side, to the right and left of the entrance a
wall of large and small stones joined with earth had been erected
all along the rock-cut walls of the thalamos ; this wall is 4 feet
ΤΟΣ inches thick on the north, 4 feet 8 inches on the east side,
and 4 feet 4 inches on the south and west sides. The tha/amos

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 147

within these walls is 12 feet 74 inches long, west to east, and
9 feet 3+ inches broad, north to south. The floor of the thalamos
consists of the levelled and smoothed rock, and is on the same
level as the floor of the treasury, At a height of 8 feet above
the floor of the thalumos the four slabs of greenish calcareous
schist of which the ceiling was composed were laid across in the
direction north to south. I have been able to measure only the
second slab after entering by the door, which is 15 feet 2 inches
long, but it is most probable that all have the same length, in
which case they would overlap the stone wall by about 3 feet,
as well on the north as on the south side. But to render them
still more secure the north and south ends of the slabs were
covered to a height of 6 feet with large stones joined with earth
in the shape of a wall. On entering by the door the first block
is 9 inches thick and 2 feet 73 inches broad; the second 1 foot
93. inches thick, 4 feet broad; the third slab has the enormous
thickness of 1 foot 44 inches and 3 feet 104 inches broad; the
fourth is 8; inches thick, 4 feet 2 inches broad. The third slab
has a ledge and overlaps the fourth slab by 1% inch in the
middle, but the ledge gradually diminishes to ἔ of an inch at
the ends. These four slabs have on the lower side, which con-
stituted the ceiling of the ¢halamos, a splendidly sculptured
ornamentation, representing first a border of small squares,
followed by a border of large rosettes, each of which is five
inches in diameter, and has sixteen treble flower leaves; I have
observed, however, three rosettes with only twelve leaves, and
there may be some more of the same numbers, for the slabs
having fallen into the ¢halamos, it is impossible to look over all
the rosettes carefully. This border of rosettes is followed
throughout the length of the thalamos, on the west as well
as on the east side, by rows of six beautiful spirals, on the
north by four rows of the same spirals, and by the same
number on the south side; then follows, in the centre, a square
containing all round it a border of two rows of rosettes of the
same size as before, and within it twenty-four spirals. All the
spirals are interwoven with two palm leaves, between which a
long bud shoots forth, all the remaining available space between
the two palm leaves being filled with palmettes with fourfold
leaves. To enhance the beauty of the decoration the ancient
Orchomenian artist has placed these palmettes opposite each
L 2

148 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

other. Professor Sayce calls my attention to the great resem-
blance of these palmettes to sphinx-tails. I represent here on
Plate XII. the whole ceiling in 7; size, and on Plate XIII. part of
it ini size. If none of the architectonic forms of this ceiling
are unknown to us, and if, for instance, we find the same sort
of spiral both at Troy? and at Mycenae,? and the palmettes
frequently at the latter place,® their composition nevertheless
is perfectly new. Professor E. Ziller remarks to me that, as
weaving must necessarily have preceded sculpture, this orna-
mentation must have been the motive of a carpet, from which
it was copied on the ceiling. Professor Brugsch Pasha observes
to me that the spiral ornamentation is frequent in Egyptian
tombs of the fourth dynasty. Professor Sayce observes to me
that rosettes are originally Babylonian, and passed over into
Phoenician art, which they characterise.

In fact, we find them everywhere on vases of what is called
Phoenico-Hellenic art; also on the truncated triangular bronze
plate found at Olympia, which is divided into four compart-
ments ; in the lowest of which stands the winged Asiatic goddess
who is Nana at Babylon, Istar in Assyria, Ashtoreth (turned
into Astarté by the Greeks) in Phoenicia, Cybele in Lydia, the
Ephesian Artemis of the Greeks. In the second compartment
come Heracles and the Centaurs; in the third, griffons facing
each other; in the fourth, three eagles ; while rosettes, of which
one of bronze was found with the plate, seem to have been put
in to fill up the spaces in the different compartments.

Rosettes are frequent on Trojan and Mycenian* jewellery, nay,
I found in the Trojan treasures a number of gold earrings, each
of which is decorated with twenty-eight rosettes. But this
beautiful ceiling was not the only ornamentation of the thalamos,
for its four walls were lined with slabs of marble nearly three
inches thick, which are decorated below with a border of rosettes
of the same size as those on the ceiling. Doubtless this border
lined below and at the top the four sides of each wall, all the
remaining space being occupied with spirals. There are only a
few remains of this wall-lining with rosettes and spirals still in

1 See my 7108, Nos. 8836—838. 471.
2 See my DMycenae, Nos. 140, 153, 4 See Jlios, Nos. 842, 843, 835, 873,
472, 476. 907, 920, 903; and Mycenae, Nos. 281,

3 See my Mycenae, Nos. 151, 470, 283, 284, 285, 337, 344, 354, etc.

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 149

situ, which appear to have been exposed to a great fire, in con-
sequence of which they are more or less decomposed by damp,
but still the ornamentation of spirals and rosettes is conspicuous
on them. As before mentioned, I found in the treasury several
plates of decomposed marble (one of them 2 feet 4 inches long,
1 foot 8 inches broad), with a spiral decoration, which most un-
doubtedly belong to the wall-lining of the thelamos, but no
detached fragments of it were found in the chamber itself.
Professor Sayce calls my attention to the fact that the lining of
walls with sculptured slabs is an Assyrian fashion, which is
found in the palaces of the Assyrian kings. May not this
thalamos still have been in a good state of preservation at the
time of Pausanias, and may it not have inspired him with such
adnuration that he speaks of the Minyean treasury as one of
the greatest marvels of his time? I expected to find in the
thalamos a sarcophagus, or at least marks and indices of its
having been a tomb, but I was disappointed, for I found there
nothing but black earth and not even a potsherd; a broken
tile and a round piece of terra cotta with two holes were all the
chamber contained.

It deserves attention that the pedestals in the great hall of
the treasury were all found standing on the smoothed rock
which forms its floor, whilst most of the cornices and square
slabs, which must have belonged to the sanctuary or some other
monument that once stood in the great hall, were generally
separated from the floor by an intervening layer of wood-ashes
of from one to four inches thick. Besides, the pedestals as well
as all the cornices and well polished square blocks present most
evident marks of having been exposed to a great fire, and the
monument to which the latter belonged must have been de-
stroyed by the fire, as otherwise the slabs could not have fallen
on a layer of wood-ashes, whereas the pedestals stand on the
rock,

Professor Sayce suggests that the Goths, who were Christians
and altogether illiterate, and came in 396 A.D. under Alaric
to Greece, may have heaped up in the treasury in and about the
sanctuary, into whose construction wood had entered largely, all
the wooden idols they found in Orchomenus and its neighbour-
hood, and then set fire to the monument. But to this I have to
object that even if the whole treasury had been filled with wood

150 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

to its very top stone, the wood-ashes could not possibly have
produced a solid layer of ashes of more than three feet in
thickness, and would probably have been much less thick,
whereas, as afore-mentioned, the wood-ashes and other burned
material in the treasury had a depth of twelve feet. Visitors
may ascertain this fact from the burned material which sticks
between the blocks of the treasury walls up to that height. But,
strange to say, these blocks nowhere present any trace of having
been exposed to the fire. In the thalamos, on the contrary, I
found not the slightest trace either of wood-ashes or other burned
material, but nevertheless the wall-lining, as well as the four large
sculptured slabs of greenish calcareous schist which roofed the
chamber, present the most unmistakable marks of the great heat
to which they have been exposed ; nay, traces of fire may even
be seen in the fractures of the slabs, and it is, therefore, evident
that they had been somewhat weakened and softened by the
effect of fire, so as ultimately to break down under the super-
incumbent weight of the débris which had been pressing upon
them for a long number of centuries. In fact, had it not.
been for the effect of the fire, these thick slabs could never
have split. I remind the reader that the two middle slabs
have the enormous thickness of 1 foot 32 inches and 1 foot
44 inches. If I am led to believe that the layer of wood-ashes
and other burned material, 12 feet deep, in the great hall of the
treasury, can only be explained by a succession of fires, probably
sacrificial fires continued for years, I find no explanation of the
fact that no trace of smoke or heat is visible on the marble blocks
of which the treasury is built. But still much more inexplic-
able is it to me that the slabs lining the walls as well as the
ceiling-blocks of the thalamos should show marks of a great fire,
although the chamber only contains black earth and no trace of
ashes or other burned material. Professor Sayce’s theory that
the entrance to the thalamos being open, and the chamber empty,
its ornamented slabs could have suffered from the fire in the
great hall of the treasury, seems to me to be inadmissible, the
entrance to the thalamos being 9 feet 4 inches long, and only
5 feet broad; besides, this entrance was, to one half of its
height, filled with the same kind of black earth as the thalamos,
and contained no trace of burned material.

Wonderful to say, the marks of fire are not limited to the

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 151

thalamos, for they can also be seen far above it. As above stated,
the ¢halamos is on its north-east and south sides, and partly on
its west side, cut out in the rock, but it is very curious that
although the vertically cut sides of the rock reach far above
the slabs which roofed the chamber, we find the rock suc-
ceeded by perpendicular clay walls, precisely as if there had
been above the ¢halamos a second story to which its roof served
as floor. Now all these clay walls, whose remains visitors will see
rising above the rock-cut walls, on the north side for six feet, on
the east side for three feet, and on the south side for two feet,
bear most evident signs of having been exposed to a very great
heat, which has penetrated far into the clay and baked it. In the
north-east corner above the thalamos we see built vertically
above the rock wall, and on the same line with the burnt clay
wall, a wall of crude brick, 5 feet 8 inches thick, which rises to
within 2 feet of the surface, and which shows no trace of fire.
This wall is another great puzzle to me. The only possible
explanation seems to me that the roof of the thalamos was
originally intended to stand free and to have no superincumbent
weight, and that, to effect this, a second story stood above it,
whose walls consisted of the vertically cut rock and the
clay walls which were baked to give them greater solidity ;
further, that the door opening into this second story was in the
north-east corner, and that it was in much later times walled up
with crude bricks in order to level and consolidate the soil.
I may add that the quality of the rubbish on the second floor of
the thalamos, as well as the objects found there, seem certainly
to corroborate my theory. In fact, the accumulation consisted
principally, nay almost entirely, of black earth, which appears
to have been washed down by the winter rains from the much
higher plateau of the ancient city; the more so as it contained
a most diversified mixture of fragments of prehistoric and of
Hellenic pottery and even of potsherds of the middle ages. Of
more interesting objects found there 1 mention the fragment of
a silver vase and a couple of stone axes; but 1 suppose that
these have also been washed down from the higher plateau.
But this would only explain the baked wall above the thalamos,
and not at all the fire by which the sculptured roof suffered, for
as the marks of fire on the sculptures show, there was also a
fire within the thalamos.

152 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS,

Besides this excavation I also explored the whole site of the
ancient city on the Hypantheion, which is strewn with fragments
of ancient terra-cottas, among which glazed red and black bricks
predominate; we have, unfortunately, as yet no standard for
determining even only approximately the age of these curious
bricks, but as they occur in such large masses, I suppose they
are not earlier than the Macedonian period, and perhaps even
later. Among the pottery with which the site of ancient Orcho-
menus is strewn, the wheel-made, varnished, uniform red pre-
dominates, which can also, in my opinion, not be anterior to
the Macedonian time. But there also occur a good many
fragments of archaic painted pottery, as well as of monochrome
hand-made black or yellow pottery, which is centuries older.

My attempts to find more treasuries have been in vain; in
two of my shafts sunk for that purpose I struck the rock ata
depth of 9 feet ; in others I only reached it at a depth of from 16
to 18 feet, this latter depth being the greatest I found in the débris
on the Hypantheion. I also excavated a trench 5 feet broad,
110 feet long, on the north, side of the Hypantheion (see
Map) in a place where a small elevation of the soil seemed to
indicate a tomb. I struck there, on the edge of the rock, at a
depth of 16 feet, a wall of unwrought stones joined with earth,
5 feet 10 inches thick, which Professor Sayce holds to be the
ancient Minyean city wall. I found in this trench many
skeletons of men, but so badly preserved that all the skulls
crumbled away when being taken out. I also found there
frequent layers of burned material. It is very remarkable that
at Orchomenus painted pottery, with spirals and other Mycenian
ornamentation, also cows with two long horns and the same
variegated colours as at Mycenae, as well as goblets of the very
same form and colour as at Mycenae,! are generally only found
down to a depth of about six feet below the surface of the ground,
and that at a greater depth, monochrome, black, red, or yellow,
hand-made or wheel-made pottery is found almost exclusively,
analogous to some of that colleeted by me in the royal sepulchres
at Mycenae. Very frequent here are the large hand-made black
coblets or bowls, with a hollow foot and horizontal flutings in
the middle, which I also found at Mycenae ;* also fragments of

1 See my Miycenae, Coloured Plate A, fig. ὦ and 6, and Nos. 84, 88.
2 See my I/ycenac, No, 230.

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 153

vases having a perpendicular excrescence with a vertical perfora-
tion for suspension on either side, like Fig. II.; also fragments

No. Il.—Scale 2: ὃ.

of vases having on each side a horizontal excrescence with a
vertical hole, like No. III. But most fragments belong to vases

No. III.—Scale 2: 8.

having on each side excrescences with a horizontal tubular
hole for suspension, like Figs. IV., V., and VI. There also

154 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

frequently occur fragments of vases which are characterised by
their small handles, like Fig. VII., and others by their long
and slender handles like the pottery of the sixth city at
Troy,’ like Fig. VIII. There also occur vases with a gutter
in the rim, like IX. All this pottery is either hand-made or
wheel-made, and is sometimes black, in which case it has the
natural colour ef the clay, sometimes red or yellow, in which
case it is generally slightly varnished.

Tripods of baked clay certainly existed in ancient Orchomenos,
but they were not abundant, for I found only a few feet belonging
to them. Rare, also, are vases with excrescences in the form of
female breasts. In general the prehistoric monochrome Orcho-
menian vases are but very slightly baked, in fact, most of them
are baked hardly to one-eighth of the thickness of the clay, but
nevertheless they have the appearance of great solidity, which is
the more astonishing as the clay shows but a very small admixture
of crushed granite or siliceous stone. Strange to say, even the
large jars (πίθοι) of Orchomenus are baked to less than half the
thickness of the clay. This fact seems to prove more than
anything else that the clay here is most excellent; were it
not so these large jars would break by their own ponderous
weight.

I had sometimes found here and there outside the royal
Mycenian tombs fragments of a glazed blue, green, yellow, or red,
wheel-made pottery very much resembling in fabric the present
Turkish pottery, and I could not, therefore, believe it to be
ancient. But as I now find this same glazed pottery at
Orchomenus on the rock in the treasury, and in the lowest
strata in my shafts and trenches on the Hypantheion, I do not
hesitate to proclaim that this sort of glazed pottery must have
been in use In Greece at a remote prehistoric period, but the
secret of its manufacture must have been subsequently lost,
because it is not found in the layers of débris of the historic
times. The vase-bottoms of this glazed pottery have usually the
form of the ancient Hellenic vase-bottoms, which is never the
case with Turkish pottery. Sometimes we see on this pottery
rude designs, which strike the eye by their curious forms.

Of other objects found by me in my shafts and trenches on
the Hypantheion I may mention stone implements, such as

1 See my Jlios, No. 1381.

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 155

some axes of diorite, a large number of spherical corn-bruisers
of granite or basalt, some pestles of diorite or granite, a few
hammers of diorite, a number of whorls of steatite or clay, and

No. 1V.—Actual size.

some knives of obsidian. Οἱ metal hardly anything at all was
found there ; only a few iron nails in the upper strata. Of bone
I found in the large trench on Hypantheion a curious object, in

No. V.—Scale 2:3.

the form of a crescent, with two pointed ends standing 6} inches

apart.
Farther up Hypantheion are two low hillocks; a little
more west, at about thirty yards beyond the western wall of

156 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

ancient Orchomenus, is another somewhat higher hillock, and
about 120 yards still higher up there are two more small hillocks.
All these hillocks are marked on the Map. I have explored
all of them, but without success, for the two first I found to
consist of the remnants of a building of the middle ages. Through
the higher hillock I ran an open trench 4 feet 10 inches broad, 30
feet long, and 8 to 9 feet deep. I found here only glazed black
and red tiles and a bead of blue glass. On the south side of this
trench I struck a wall 6 feet 3 inches high, and 3 feet 4 inches
broad, consisting of large wrought stones, whose outside is left
rough. On this wall seems to have been lying a large wrought
block whieh I found, the smooth side undermost, at a distance of
8 feet from it. This wall, which appears to be of the Macedonian
time, runs from west to east and joins at right angles the
western wall of ancient Orchomenus, which may still be traced
across the hill from south to west, and which I excavated on
the north side to the rock on which it rests (see Map), In
the two small hillocks farther west, I found nothing but some
fragments of glazed very archaic black Hellenic pottery.

To Pausanias' were shown at Orchomenus the tombs of
Minyas and Hesiod, which may perhaps be marked by the two
afore-mentioned conical hillocks called Magula ; but these being
planted with vines, I could not obtain from the proprietors
permission to explore them. The Periegetes further saw here
a remarkable fountain, to which there was a descent.2, I should
not hesitate to identify this fountain with the natural spring of
beautiful water at the northern foot of Hypantheion, about
200 yards beyond the treasury, because there are traces of a
flight of steps in the rock leading down to it, but as Pausanias
employs here the word κρήνη, which he constantly uses for an
artificial conduit from a natural source in opposition to πηγή, a
natural spring, this fountain must needs be sought elsewhere.
Pausanias® also saw here a temple of Dionysus, of which there
is no trace left; further a bronze figure bound by a chain of iron
toarock. It was supposed to represent a spectre, by which the
rock had been haunted, and which the oracle of Delphi, on being
consulted, had declared to be the ghost of Actaeon. By the
advice of the oracle the remains of Actaeon were buried and
the statue was made which Pausanias saw. The latter leaves

1 ix, 38. 2 Idem. 3 lem.

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 157

us in doubt as to the particular rock to which it was
attached.

Professor Sayce calls my attention to the name Orchomenus,
which is only used in the singular, implying that there was only one

No. Vl.—Scale 2: 8.

city, which was an acropolis and a town together; the original
Orchomenians having been driven out by the Greeks, there never
were two settlements. Where, on the contrary, a Greek city has

Ξ
No. VII.—Stale 2 : 8,

a plural name there were two settlements, as, for instance, the
Cadmeian Thebes, where the upper city, the Cadmeia, was
Phoenician, the lower Greek. This may, as Sayce suggests,
also explain why only Ὑποθῆβαν took part in the Trojan war.

158 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

So ᾿Αθῆναι, of which E. Curtius has tried to show that the lower
city was Phoenician. So Megara is the Phoenician word Magur,
to which the Greeks gave their own plural form. This seems
to be corroborated by part of Carthage being called Magaria,
Latinized into Magalia by Vergil, for so he calls the houses in
Carthage. The same is probably the case also with other
Greek cities, like Μυκῆναι, which are used in the plural.

I give here in cursive writing an exact copy of an inscription
which is put up in the outer wall of the church of the monastery.
It is very*remarkable, as it is coeval with the walls of the
building, which is dedicated to the Apostles Peter and Paul,
and indicates that it was built in the year 6382 after the creation
of the world, ὁ... in 874 A.D., by Leo, who held the dignity of
Protospatharius under the emperors Basil I., Leo VI., and
Constantine VII. :—

᾿Εκαληέργησεν τὸν ναὸν tov Ἁγίου Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου
| Λέον ὁ πανεύφιμος βασηληκὸς Προτοσπαθάριος, καὶ ἐπὴ τὸν
VKLAKOV, ὑπὲρ λύτρου καὶ ἀφέσεος τὸν πολλῶν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτηῶν,
ἔτους ἀπὸ κτήσεος κόσμου ἑξακισχηλιοστὸ τριακοσηοστῷ ὀγδοη-
κοστῷ Β.

Another inscription in the outer wall of the church indicates
the same personage as builder of that sanctuary; it reads as
follows :—

᾿Ἐκαληέργησεν τὼν ναὸν τοῦ Ἁγίου Πέτρου τοῦ κωρυφέου τῶν
ἀποστόλων Λέον ᾧ πανεύφιμος βασιληκὸς Προτοσπαθάρηος
καὶ ἐπὴ τῶν ὑκηακῶν, ὑπὲρ λύτρου καὶ ἀφέσεος τὸν πολλῶν
αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτηὸν ἐπὴ ᾿Ιγνατήου τοῦ ὑκουμενηκοῦ πατρηάρχου.
Ἀμήν.

The following inscription, which likewise indicates the Proto-
spatharius Leo as builder of the church, may be seen on the
external wall of a chapel which adjoins the church :—

Ἐπὶ Βασιλίου Κονσταντήνου καὶ Aéwytos τὸν θηωτάτον
βασιλέων τὸν Ῥωμέον. Παναγήα θεοτωκε σὺν τὸ μονωγενῆ
σου ἱυῷ Bont τοῦ σοῦ δούλου Λέωντος βασιληκοῦ Προτωσπα-
θαρίου, κὲ ἐπὴ τὸν οἰκηακῶν σὺν τί συνεύνῳ Ke τῦς φιλτατυς
τέκνυς αὐτοῦ, τοῦ ἐκ πόθου κὲ πήστεος μεγίστις ἀναστίσαντος
τὸν σὸν ἅγιων ναὸν. Ἀμήν.

Although these three inscriptions have been published in the
Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, I nevertheless give them here
as they are very important, for two reasons: first, because they

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 159

show us what little attention was paid to orthography at the
barbarous period when the church was built; and secondly,
because they prove to us that already a thousand years ago

No. VIII.—Scale 2: 3.
Greek was pronounced precisely as it is now in Greece, av
being rendered by e,« by 7 and 7 by 1, οὐ by v, o by ὦ and ὦ by

o, ve by ev, ev by ἡ as well as bye. I further call attention to

No. IX.—Sceale 2: 3.

the words ‘Bon (instead of βοήθει) tod σοῦ δούλου, which
prove that the corrupt use of the genitive instead of the dative
in modern Greek, was already {introduced into the Greek

160 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

spoken a thousand years ago. But that even at that time there
were men who cultivated letters and admired Homer, is evident
from another inscription, written in Homeric hexameters, in
honour of the same Protospatharius Leon, who is indicated in
the three foregoing inscriptions as builder of the church. It
is on a marble slab put up in a pillar of masonry behind the
church: I give it here also in cursive writing :—

Ov φθόνος οὐδὲ χρόνος περιμήκετος ἔργα καλύψει
Lav καμάτων, πανάριστε, βυθῷ πολυχανδέϊ λήθης,
" 3 \ , \ > / ¥ ”

Epya ἐπεὶ βούωσι καὶ ov λαλέοντά περ ἔμπης,
Καὶ τόδε γὰρ τέμενος παναοίδιμον ἐξετέλεσας,
Mytpos ἀπειρογάμου, θεοδέγμονος ἰφιανάσσης,
Τερπνὸν ἀποστίλβον περικαλλέα πάντοθεν αἴγλην.
Χριστοῦ δ᾽ ἑκατέρωθεν ἀποστόλω ἕστατον ἄμφω,
"Ov Ῥώμης βῶλαξ ἱερὴν κόνιν ἀμφικαλύπτει.

ie , bl / / , ’ > / 4

Ζώοις ἐν θαλίῃσι χρόνων ἐπ᾽ ἀπείρονα κύκλα,

"Q πολύαινε Δέον Πρωτοσπαθώάριε μέγιστε,
Γηθόμενος κτεάτεσσι καὶ ἐν τεκέεσσιν ἀρίστοις
Χῶρον ἐπικρατέων τε παλαιφάτου ᾽Ορχομένοιο.

Ancient inscriptions abound on marble slabs built into
the external and internal walls of the church, and in the
walls around or close by; they are all—with only one or two
exceptions, in the Boeoto-Aeolic dialect, which employed the
digamma, and they are consequently important to philology.
But I see that all have already been published. It deserves
atteution that in all the inscriptions in which the digamma is
employed, Orchomenus is called "Epyouevos. This orthography
proves to us that the coins which have on a Boeotian’ shield,
an ear of wheat, and a garland of olive, with the legend EPXO,
EPX, EP, or only E, belonged to Orchomenus. On a fragment
of a black glazed vase, said to have been found near the
monastery, is the inscription

MOIrENOI

probably of the Macedonian time.
In company with Professor Sayee, I visited the ancient city
of Copae, situated on the very small island οἱ Gla, close to the

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 161

northern shore of the lake of Copais, at a distance of only six-
teen miles from Orchomenus, and joined to the mainland by
a narrow isthmus. But as the road goes for the most part
across the rocks, and is exceedingly bad and full of stones,
it took us not less than five hours to go thither on horseback.
We passed by the village of Xeropyrgo, situated on the heights
which bound the marshes. In an air-line, the latter is ouly threc
miles east-north-east from Orchomenus, but by the circuitous route
to be followed on horseback, it is more than eight miles.

It is, no doubt, identical with Tegyra, of which Plutarch?
says that it stood not tar from Orchomenus, above the marshes
of the Melas, and that the two cities were joined by a road,
which led through a pass formed by these marshes. Copae is
marked by the village of Topolia, which is nearly as filthy as
Thebes, but the polished marble slabs and fragments of sculpture
which we see here and there in the walls of the wretched houses,
testify to the splendour and opulency of the ancient town. From
the holes which have been dug here and there, I saw that the
accumulation of ancient déiis is considerable, and exceeds in
some places twelve feet; this is the more remarkable as the
little isle consists ot a rock fifty feet high, which slopes on all
sides under an angle of about 60° to the lake of Copais. On
a marble slab in an excavation at our halting place, I copied
the following mutilated inscription, which is evidently of the
Middle Ages, and proves that at the time it was written,
there was still a town called Copae :—

. NOAICKWNAIGI[N...]
... CAVTHCCWTHIPA...]
ΕΥ̓ΕΡΓΈΤΗΝ...

On another slab and also of the Middle Ages :--

AYZQN
XAIPE

On a marble slab in the external wall of a small abandoned
church, we see in low relief a warrior seated on a horse, which
is running at full speed, so that his himation is flying in the
wind; his head-cover is a cap with a broad screen; while his

1 Life of Peiopidas.
H. S.—VOL, II. | M

162 EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS.

body is covered from neck to loins with a large shield. Above
the sculpture we see the inscription :—

ENIZQTHPIAA
HPQ!

which seems to be of the Roman time,
In the same old church there is a square marble column with
the inscription :—

OMOADIXOZ

In the external wall of the new church at Topolia there are
three long inscriptions, but one is illegible. Copae has given
its name to the lake of Copais. This is confirmed by Strabo,!
who, having spoken of Copae, says: ‘In ancient times there was
no common name for the lake, but it was called by the name of
each city situated on its banks; thus Copais froin Copae, Haliartis
from Haliartus, and it had other names from other cities ; in later
times the predominating name, Copais, was applied to the whole
lake, for the region of Copae forms the greatest gulf.’ The in-
habitants of Topolia procure from the lake numerous eels,
which were already in antiquity renowned? for their bulk
and fatness, and which Pausanias commends from his own
experience.®

I finally call attention to an excavation, made by Mrs.
Schliemann, close to the monastery of Skripu and on its
south side, in which she found half a dozen Byzantine
tombs, and below these some others, apparently more ancient,
which may be of the Roman time, as Roman pottery was
found with them; but all the tombs, upper as well as lower,
were of the same rude workmanship, for they consisted of two
rudely wrought slabs on which the body was extended, and a
third by which it was covered.

Travellers will see in Skripu on the road-side, about 120
yards south of the monastery, a Roman ruin, apparently of
a bath.

In a high antiquity there must have been a good road from
Lebadeia to Orchomenus, as otherwise it would have been
impossible to transport across the swampy plain all the marbles

1 jx. p. 411 Poll. i. 6.
2 Aristophanes, <Acharn. v. 880; 3 ix, 24: af δὲ ἐγχέλεις αὐτόθι καὶ
also Archestrat, apud Athen. i. 7,13: μεγέθει μέγισται καὶ ἐσθίειν εἰσὶν ἥδισται.

EXPLORATION OF THE BOEOTIAN ORCHOMENUS. 163

of which the treasury is composed, and which, as already
mentioned, have been cut in the marble quarry at Lebadeia.

The very excellent drawings of the ceiling of the thalamos,
Plates XII. and XIII., as well as a plan of the treasury, and
drawings of the ¢halamos door and the thresholds, were made
by the distinguished German architects, Messrs. W. Déorpfeld,
Richard Borrmann, and F. Graeber, to whom 1 here tender
my hearty thanks.

HEINRICH SCHLIEMANN.

μ᾿
Ξ
be

164 ON THE AUTHENTICITY

ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE OLYMPIAN
REGISTER.}

THERE seems a sort of general agreement among modern
histcrians of Greece to accept the Ist Olympiad (776 B.c.) as
the trustworthy starting point of solid Greek chronology. Even
Grote, so sceptical about legends, and so slow to gather in-
ferences from them, accepts this datum. There is only one
exception, I think, to be found in Sir George Cox, who evidently
rejects the Olympiad register, who will not set down in his
chronology any figure higher than 670 B.c., and even that
under the protest of a query.

When we come to inquire on what authority so early a date
can be securely established, we find a sort of assumption, not
supported by argument, that from 776 onward the Eleians kept
a regular record of their great festival, and as a matter of fact
such a record is extant. It was generally acknowledged and
cited by the later historians of Greece, who determined events
according to it. Above all, the critical doubts of philologists are
soothed by the supposed authority of Aristotle, who is reported
to have made researches on the question, and to refer to the list
as if authentic; he even mentioned a discus at Olympia with
Lycurgus’ name inscribed upon it, but in what work, and for
what purpose, is unknown. I know that Aristotle is considered
an infallible authority by modern philologists, so much so that
those who are ready enough to deny even general inspiration to
other authorities, seem almost to attribute verbal inspiration to
this philosopher. One other Greek authority shares with him
this pre-eminence—the historian Thucydides. And it so happens

1 1 must acknowledge some valuable of Berlin; both of whom agree with

hints and corrections from Dr. Hirsch- my main results,
feld of Konigsberg, and Dr. Th. Kock

OF THE OLYMPIAN REGISTER. 165

that in his Sicilian Archaeology (book vi.) Thucydides gives a
number of dates, with precision and without hesitation, which
reach back to 735 B.c., and therefore persuades his commentators
‘that accurate dates were attainable up to a period close to the
130 Olympiad. These are apparently the silent reasons which
have determined the general consent of modern historians.

But neither Grote, nor E. Curtius, nor even Sir George Cox
have analysed the evidence for the authenticity of the older
portion of this register. I cannot find in Clinton’s ἢ δέ, where
it might well be expected, any such inquiry. In Mure’s Greek
Literature (iv. 77-90), a work far less esteemed than it deserves,
and here only, do we find even a fair statement of the evidence.
The negative conclusions reached by Mure have made no im-
pression on the learned world, and are now well nigh forgotten.
It is the object of this paper to take up the question where he
left it, and to add some positive evidence to corroborate his
argument—that the list of victors at Olympiads handed down to
us by Eusebius is, at least in its earlier part, an artificially con-
structed list, resting on occasional and fragmentary monumental
records, and therefore of no value as a scientific chronology.
We will also endeavour to determine when the victors began to
be regularly recorded, and when the extant list was manufac-
tured. Such an inquiry must be of great importance in de-
termining the amount of credence to be given to the dates of
events referred to in the eighth and first half of the seventh
centuries B.c.—for example, Thucydides’ dates for the western
colonies of the Hellenes.

Let us first sketch the correct tradition about the Register
as we find it implied in Diodorus, Strabo, the fragments of
Timaeus, and other late historians. We fortunately find in
Pausanias a very considerable amount of detail, and a sketch
of the general history of the feast as then accepted. All
admitted, and indeed asserted, a mythical origin for the games.
The declarations of Pindar and other old poets were express,
that Herakles had founded them, that Pelops and other
mythical heroes had won victories at them-—and victories
of various kinds, including chariot races. Another account
ascribed their foundation to Oxylus. But a long gap was
admitted between these mythical glories and the revival of the
games by Iphitus, king of Elis. ‘This Iphitus,’ says Pausanias

166 ON THE AUTHENTICITY

(v. 4, 5), ‘the epigram ut Olympia declares to be the son of
Haemon, but most of the Greeks to be the son of Praxonides,
and not of Haemon ; the old documents (ἀρχαῖα γράμματα) of the
Eleians, however, referred Iphitus to a father of the same name.’
Iphitus, in connection with the Spartan Lycurgus, re-established
the games, but (as was asserted) only as a contest in the short
race (στάδιον), and in this first historical Olympiad Coroebus
won, as was stated in an epigram on his tomb, situated on
the borders of Elis and Arcadia (Paus. viii. 26, 4). The quoit
of Iphitus, on which Lycurgus’ name was engraved in some
inscription, was at Elis in the days of Aristotle. This ‘discus
ot Iphitus,’ says Pausanias (v. 20, 1), ‘has the truce which the
Eleians announce for the Olympiad, not inscribed in straight
lines, but the letters run round the discus in a circular form.’
He alludes to the list again and again: ex. gr. (v. 8, 3) ‘ever
since there is a continuous record of the Olympiads (ἐξ οὗ τὸ
συνεχὲς ταῖς μνήμαις ἐπὶ τοῖς "OX. éoti); prizes for running
were first established, and the Eleian Coroebus won.’

Pausanias proceeds in this passage to give an account of the
successive additions of other competitions to the sprint race,
‘according as they remembered them,’ that is, according as
they recollected or found out that they had been practised in
mythical days. In the 14th Ol. the δίαυλος, or double course,
was instituted, and Hypenus the Pisaean won, and next after
him Acanthus. In the 18th they remembered the pentathlon
and the wrestling match, in which Lampis and Eurybatus
respectively won, both Lacedaemonians. In the 23rd came
boxing, and Onomastus of Smyrna, which then already counted
as Ionian, won. In the 25th the first chariot race was won by
the Theban Pagondas. In the 28th came the pancration, and
the monument of the first victor, Lygdamis, was at Syracuse.
.... The boys’ contests were based on no old tradition, but the
Eleians established them of their own good pleasure. The
boys’ wrestling match was accordingly instituted in the 37th Ol.
I need not pursue the account further, but will return to the
passage in connection with the other arrangements of the
feast.

We find that other authorities, such as Polemo, quoted by
the Scholiast on Pindar (Ol. v.), agree with Pausanias as to
some of these details. Strabo quotes from Ephorus the double

ee ϑϑδυδδιν,

OF THE OLYMPIAN REGISTER. 167

foundation by Oxylus and again by Iphitus. So does the
account of Phlegon, a freedman of Hadrian, who wrote a work
on the Olympian festival, and gave a list of victors, probably
from the same source as Eusebius’ list. Phlegon notes mdeed
the difficulty of making Lycurgus and Iphitus contemporary
with Coroebus in 776 B.c., and fixes the date of Iphitus twenty-
eight Olympiads earlier (at 887 B.c.) But he introduces Iphitus
again in the 6th registered Ol., inquiring about the crowning of
victors, and states that Daicles of Messene was first crowned
with wild olive at the 7th contest. The only other point of
interest in Phlegon’s fragments is the full catalogue of the
177th Ol. (frag. 12 in Miiller’s Frag. Hist. iv. 606), which gives
the winners in seventeen events; some of them thrice successful
in the competitions.

We may therefore take it for granted that the account of
Pausanias, which now passes current in all the German and
English works on Greek athletics, was, in the main, that esta-
blished or adopted by Timaeus and by Aristotle, the latter of
whom seems to have first given the Olympiads their prominent
position as the basis of Greek chronology. Whether he adopted
it as genuine from the beginning or not, his isolated remark
about the quoit of Iphitus is not sufficient to inform us. Indeed
we have rather negative evidence concerning his opinion than
any positive information.

It is of far more importance to examine what evidence there
was for this theory of the gradual rise and progress of the
festival, its regularity, and the prominence of the stadion, or
short race, in giving the name of its victor as the index of the
date. We have two kinds of authority to consult—the older
literature; and the monuments, either at first hand, or as de-
scribed for us by former observers. As regards the literature,
our review need be but very brief.

(1) The twenty-third book of the J/iad seems composed with-
out any reference to the earliest Olympian games as Pausanias
describes them. The nature of this perhaps special competition
is quite different. There are events, such as the armed combat,
which never made part of the historical games; there are
others, such as the chariot race, which are expressly asserted to
have been later innovations at Olympia. The giving of valuable
prizes, and several of them in each competition, is quite against

168 ON THE AUTHENTICITY

the practice at Olympia. The Phaeacian games in the Odyssey
(9 120, ς 7) contain jive events, running, wrestling, leaping.
discus, and boxing. Those who believe that the epics were
composed before 776 B.c., or those who believe them to be
the much later compilation of antiquarian poets, will find no
difficulty in this. The one will assert that the poet could not
know, and the other that he would not know, what was
established at Olympia. The latter will also hold that the
accounts of the mythical celebrations by Herakles, Pelops, &e.,
were invented in imitation of the Homeric account. But still
if Lycurzus indeed promoted the knowledge of the Homeric
poems, why did he and Iphitus found a contest without the
least resemblance to the heroic models? And if, as I hold,
the Hemeric poems were growing into shape about the time
of the Ist Olympiad, and after it, the silence of the Jliad,
and its contrast to the Olympian festival in its games, are
difficult to explain, unless we assume that the old Eleian
competition was not a mere sprint race, but a contest similar
in its events to that in the J/iad, or at least to that in the
Odyssey

(2) This view is strongly supported by the statements of
Pindar, who is the next important witness on the subject. In
his Tenth Olympic Ode (vr. 43 sq.) he tells of the foundation by
Herakles and gives the names of jive heroes who won the
various events of the first contest. And there is no hint that
there was any break in the tradition, or that these five events
had not remained in fashion ever since. In fact he does
mention (sth. 1. 26 sg.) that the pentathlon and pancration were
later inventions, thus making it clear that the rest were in his
mind the original components of the meeting. Nor does he
anywhere give any priority or special dignity to the stadion ;
only the last of his Olympian odes is for this kind of victory,
lis Thirteenth for the stadion and pentathlon together. He
never mentions, as we should have expected, that these victors
would have the special glory of handing down their names as
eponymi of the whole feast. The other contests, the chariot
race, the pancration, and the pentathlon, were evidently far
grander and more highly esteemed, and we find this corrobo-
rated by the remark of Thucydides (v. 49), ‘This was the
Olympiad when Androsthenes won for the first time the

OF THE OLYMPIAN REGISTER. 169

pancration.’ Thucydides therefore seems to have marked the
Olympiad, not by the stadion, but by the pancration.

(3) This historian indeed, as well as his contemporaries,
᾿ Herodotus and Hellanicus, gives us but little information about
the nature of the games, except the remark that ‘it was not
many years’ since the habit of running naked had come into
fashion at Olympia. Such a statement cannot be reconciled with
Pausanias’ account, who placed the innevation three centuries
before Thucydides’ time. But in one important negative feature
all the fifth-century historians agree. None of them recognise
any Olympian register, or date their events by reference to
this festival. Thucydides, at the opening of his second book,
fixes his main date by the year of the priestess of Hera at
Argos, by the Spartan ephor, and by the Athenian archon.
In his Sicilian Archaeology, to which we will presently return,
where it would have been very convenient to have given dates
by Olympiads, he counts all his years from the foundation of
Syracuse downward. We know that Hellanicus, Antiochus and
others had made chronological researches at that time, and the
former treated of the list of the Carneian victors. All these
things taken together are conclusive against the existence,
or at least the recognition, of the Olympian annals down to
400 B.C,

In the next century Ephorus wrote in his earlier books con-
cerning the mythical foundation of the festival, but we hear
nothing from him at all like the history set down by Pausanias.
It is nevertheless about this time that the newer and more
precise account came into existence, for Aristotle and Timaeus,
the contemporaries of Ephorus, evidently knew and valued the
register. Its origin in literature would have remained a mystery
but for a solitary remark of Plutarch. At the opening of his
Life of Numa, in commenting on the difficulty of fixing early
dates, he says: τοὺς μὲν οὖν χρόνους ἐξακριβῶσαι χαλεπόν
ἐστι, καὶ μάλιστα τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ολυμπιονίκων ἀναγομένους, ὧν
τὴν ἀναγραφὴν ὀψὲ φασιν [Ἱππίαν ἐκδοῦναι τὸν ᾿Ηλεῖον, ἀπ᾽
οὐδενὸς ὁρμώμενον ἀναγκαίου πρὸς πίστιν.

What does this mean? Does it mean that Hippias first
published or edited in a literary form the register, or does it
mean that he both compiled and edited it? The former is the
implied opinion of the learned. ‘Dieser Zeit,’ says E. Curtius.

170 ON THE AUTHENTICITY

Hist. 1. 494 (viz. ‘die Mitte des achten Jahrhunderts ’), ‘gehoren
ja auch die Listen derer an, welche in den Nationalspielen
gesiegt’; and in the note on this at the end of the volume, he
indicates, together with the avaypadai of the Argive priestesses,
which Hellanicus published, two references to Pausanias, and
adds: ‘ wissenschaftlich bearbeitet zuerst von Hippias dem Eleer,
dann von Philochorus in seinen Ὀλυμπιάδες. Now of the
latter work we know nothing more than the name; of the
former nothing but the passage just cited from Plutarch. Does
it justify Ernst Curtius’ wissenschaftlich bearbeitet? Or does
our other knowledge of Hippias justify it? The picture of him
drawn in the Platonic dialogues called after his name, and in
Philostratus, though perhaps exaggerated, makes him a vain but
clever polymath, able to practise all trades, and exhibit in all
kinds of knowledge. But we do not expect anything ‘ wissen-
schaftlich’ from him. Indeed, in this case there was room for
either a great deal of science, or for none. If there was really
an authentic list at Olympia, Hippias need only have copied it.
But is this consistent with Plutarch’s statement? Far from it.
Plutarch implies a task of difficulty, requiring research and
judgment. And this, no doubt, was what the Sophist wanted to
supply. Being an Eleian, and desirous to make himself popular
in the city, he not anly chose Olympia for special displays of
various kinds, but brought together for the people a history of
their famous games. And in doing this he seems to have shown
all the vanity, the contempt of ancient traditions, and the rash
theorizing which we might expect from a man of his class.
We have too, fortunately, a single case quoted by Pausanias
which shows us both that this estimate of the man is not far
from the truth, and what licence the Eleians gave him when he
was reconstructing the history of the festival. Pausanias (v. 24,
2 sqqg.) tells a pathetic story about the loss of a choir of boys
and their teacher on the way from Messana in Sicily to Olympia,
where they were commemorated by statues. τὸ μὲν δὴ ἐπί-
γραμμα ἐδήλου TO ἀρχαῖον ἀναθήματα εἶναι τῶν ἐν πορθμῷ
Μεσσηνίων" χρόνῳ δὲ ὕστερον Ἱππίας ὁ λεγόμενος ὑπὸ ᾿Ελλή-
νων γενέσθαι σοφὸς τὰ ἐλεγεῖα ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐποίησεν. Here, then,
we have some kind of falsification, and apparently one in favour
of the Messenians of the Morea, if we may judge from the form
of Pausanias’ remark. In more than one case this sort of thing

OF THE OLYMPIAN REGISTER. 171

appears to have been allowed, and I think we can show in
Hippias a decided leaning to the Messenians, whose restoration
to independence he probably witnessed.

But were there really no registers, advaypadai, from which
Hippias could have copied? If there was certainly no single
complete list, of undoubted authority, may there not have been
partial lists, affording him suitable materials? This we must
endeavour to answer from the passages of Pausanias referred to
by E. Curtius, as well as from others, which he has not thought
it necessary to quote.

The first is the opening passage of the sixth book, where the
author says that as his work ‘is not a catalogue of all the
athletes who have gained victories at Olympia, but an account
of votive offerings, and especially statues, he will omit many
who have gained victories, either by some lucky chance, or
without attaining the honour of a statue.’ Though this passage
may imply that there was such a catalogue—of course there
was in Pausanias’ day—it says not a word about an old and
authentic register. It is indeed a capital fact in the present
discussion, that neither does Pausanias, in this elaborate account
of Olympia, nor, as far as I know, does any other Greek author,
distinctly mention avaypadai, or παραπήγματα, or any equi-
valent term for any official register at Olympia. Pausanias
speaks of ta τῶν ᾿Ηλείων γράμματα, and also says of certain
an-Olympiads: ἐν τῷ τῶν "OX. καταλόγῳ οὐ γράφουσιν---
not that they were erased, or noted in any official register.
In Pausanias the absence of such mention appears to me
decisive.

Let us pass to the second passage indicated by Εἰ. Curtius,
viz. vi. 6,3. ‘There stands there also the statue of Lastratidas,
an Eleian boy, who won the crown for wrestling; he obtained
also in Nemea among the boys, and among youths (ἔν te παισὶ
καὶ ἀγενείων) another victory.’ Pausanias adds: that Parabal-
lon, the father of Lastratidas, won in the δίαυλος, ὑπελείπετο
δὲ καὶ ἐς τοὺς ἔπειτα φιλοτιμία, τῶν νικησάντων Ὀλυμπίασι
τὰ ὀνόματα ἀναγράψαι ἐν γυμνασίῳ τῷ ἐν Ολυμπίᾳ. Here, at
last, we have some definite evidence, and I will add at once
another passage—the only other passage I can find where any
register is alluded to—as it expounds the former. In vi. 8, 1,
we find: Euanorides the Eleian gained the victory for wrestling

172 ON THE AUTHENTICITY

both at Olympia and Nemea: γενόμενος δὲ ᾿Ελλανοδίκης
ἔγραψε καὶ οὗτος τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν ᾿Ολυμπίᾳ τῶν νενικηκότων.
It appears then that if an Eleian had distinguished himself at
the games, he was likely to be afterwards chosen as one of the
judges—a reasonable custom, even now prevailing amongst us.
It also appears that such é\Aavodécas had the right of cele-
brating their year of office by inscribing the names of the
victors, and doubtless their own, in the gymnasium.

But fortunately, the date of these inscriptions is fixed by two
facts. In the first place both came after the establishing of
boys’ contests, which Pausanias expressly calls an invention of the
Eleians, and fixes at the 87th Olympiad. Again the son of Para-
ballon, and Euanorides himself, won prizes at Nemea—a contest
not established, according to Εἰ, Curtius, till about 570 B.c., but
to my mind a little eatlier, and near to 600 B.c. Ido not for a
moment deny the existence of some kind of register from this
time onward; in fact there are some probable reasons to be
presently adduced in favour of it. But the very form of the
note about Paraballon seems to imply some novelty, an ex-
ceptional distinction in his inscription; and what we are here
seeking is evidence for an early register, in fact a register of
the contests down to 600 B.c.

What evidence does Pausanias afford of this? As I have
said, there is not a word about a register or catalogue, but there
are several notes of old offerings and inscriptions, which show
us what sort of material existed, at least in Pausanias’ day.
And there is no reason whatever to believe that many ancient
monuments or inscriptions had been injured, unless Hippias
carried out his work of falsifying them on a large scale. There
were indeed several monuments antedated by mere vulgar
mistakes. Such was the stele of Chionis (vi. 13, 2), who was
reported to have won in four successive contests (Ols. 28-31),
but the reference in the inscription to armed races as not yet
introduced, proved even to Pausanias that it was a public record
set up long after Chionis’ period. There was again the monu-
ment of Pheidolas’ children, whose epigram Pausanias notes as
conflicting (vi. 13, 10) with τὰ ᾿Ηλείων ἐς τοὺς ᾿Ολυμπιονίκας
γράμματα. ὀγδόῃ yap "OX. καὶ ἑξηκοστῇ καὶ οὐ πρὸ ταύτης
ἐστὶν ἐν τοῖς "HX. γράμμασι ἡ νίκη τῶν ᾧ. παίδων. These
γράμωατα---ἃ word quite distinct from avaypapai—are probably

OF THE OLYMPIAN REGISTER. 173

nothing but the treatise of Hippias, preserved and copied at
Elis. Other cases I need not mention.

But as regards genuine early monuments, Pausanias tells us
that Coroebus had no statue at Olympia, and it seems there was
no record of his victory save the epigram on his tomb at the
border of Elis and Arcadia. Then comes the case of the Spartan
Kutelidas (vi. 14, 8), who conquered as a boy in the 38th OL,
the only contest ever held for a pentathlon of boys. ἔστι δὲ ἥ
Te εἰκὼν ἀρχαία τοῦ Evt., καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῷ βάθρῳ γράμματα
ἀμυδρὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ χρόνου. But this statue cannot have been so
old even as the 38th Ol. For in vi. 18, 7, he tells us that the
first athletes’ statues set up at Olympia were those of Praxi-
damas the Aeginetan, who won in boxing at the 59th OL, and
that of the Opuntian Rexibios the pancratiast, at the 61st.
‘These portrait statues are not far from the pillar of Oenomaos,
and are made of wood, Rexibios’ of fig-tree, but the Aeginetan’s
of cypress, and less decayed than the other.’ Just below this we
have a mention of a treasure-house, dedicated by the Sicyonian
tyrant Myron in the 33rd Ol. In this treasure-house was an
inscribed shield, ‘an offering to Zeus from the Myones.’ τὰ δὲ
ἐπὶ τῇ ἀσπίδι γράμματα παρῆκται μὲν ἐπὶ βραχύ, πέπονθε δὲ
αὐτὸ διὰ τοῦ ἀναθήματος τὸ ἀρχαῖον.

These exhaust the oldest dated monuments found by Pau-
sanias. He mentions indeed an ancient treasury of the
Megarians, dating from a time before either yearly archons at
Athens or Olympiads (vi. 19, 13).1_ Thus the antiquarian traveller,
who revelled in the venerable in history and the pie-Lagfaelite
in Greek art, could find no dated votive offerings older than
the 38rd Ol., and these he specially notes as of extraordinary
antiquity, decayed and illegible with age. We may feel almost
certain that he omitted no really important extant relic of old
times in his survey.

Such then were the materials from which Hippias proceeded,
somewhere about the year 400 B.c., or probably later, to compile
the full and authentic register of the Olympiads. There may
have been some old inscriptions which Pausanias overlooked, or
which had become illegible and had disappeared under the soil
with time. Doubtless there were many old traditions at Elis,

' The recent excavations have refuted this very early date for the treasure house

174 ON THE AUTHENTICITY

which the Eleian sophist would gather and utilise. There were
also throughout Greece, in the various cities he visited, traditions
and inscriptions relating to victors who had been natives of
these cities. But that these formed an unbroken chain from
Coroebus down to Hippias’ day is quite incredible.

His work is so completely lost that we can only conjecture
his method of proceeding from the general character of his age,
and from the critical spirit we can fairly attribute to it. He
had before him the history of the Pythian festival, which began
in historical ‘times (Ol. 48), if we omit the old contest in a
hymn to the gods. The various innovations and additions were
well known, and it is certain that at Olympia too the range of
contests had been enlarged by the pentathlon, the pancration,
the hoplite race, &c. But it is likely that Hippias carried out
this analogy too far. He found no traditions for the other
events as old as Coroebus, and he assumed that the games had
begun with a simple short race. Accordingly as he found the
jirst record of each competition, he set down its first origin. He
was thus led to make the στάδιον the ‘eponymous competition,’
if I may coin the expression, though it is more than probable
that the early festivals were-known by the victor in the greatest
feats and—had there been a real register—by the Hellanodicae
who had presided. For it is certain from Pausanias that the
umpire did inscribe his name with those of the victors.

Hippias’ work, the γράμματα of the Eleians in after days,
was thus a work based upon a problematical reconstruction of
history. It rested for its earlier portions on scanty and broken
evidence; as it proceeded, and monuments became more
numerous, its authenticity increased. After Ol. 60, when the
fashion came in of setting up athlete statues, we may assume
it in the main to have been correct ; though even here there
were not wanting discrepancies with other evidence, and possibly
some mala fides on the part of the compiler.

There remain, therefore, three points of interest connected
with the theory thus proposed. Have we any evidence of the
date at which the Hellanodicae first made it a matter of
ambition to inscribe their own names, and those of victors in

1 Cf. the case of Oebotas, supposed J]. 75. His statue and epigram, be it
to' have won the 6th Ol., but also observed, dated from about Ol, 80,—
asserted to have fought in Plataea in Paus, vi. 3, 8; vii. 17, 13.

OF THE OLYMPIAN REGISTER. 175

the gymnasium, at Olympia? Are there traces of a fictitious
schematising in the extant list of victors previous to this date 1
Why and for what reasons did Hippias fix on the year 776 8.6.
as the commencement of his list? The question of the an-
Olympiads I must postpone, owing to the length of the present
paper.

(1) There are several probable reasons for fixing the origin
of registering the victories at about the 50th Ol. It was about
this time that the Eleians finally conquered the Pisatans, and
secured the complete management of the games. From their
spoils they built the magnificent Doric temple lately excavated,
and no doubt increased the splendour of Olympia in other ways.
For in addition to their increase of power they were stimulated
by a new and dangerous competition—that of the Pythian
games, established in the third year of the 48th Ol., and this
may haye been one of the reasons why they determined finally
to crush the Pisatans. It is likely that the Nemean and
Isthmian games were instituted about the same time, and these
rival games were perhaps connected with some complaints as to
the management of the Olympian festival, for no Eleian was
admitted to compete at the Isthmian games (Paus. v. 2, 2),
The Eleians were accordingly put upon their mettle, both to
keep their contest unequalled in splendour, and beyond suspicion
in fairness, To obtain the first, they lavished the spoils of Pisa,
as already mentioned. As to the second, we have a remarkable
story told us by Herodotus (11. 160), and again by Diodorus
(i. 95), that they sent an embassy as far as Egypt to consult
the Pharaoh as to the best possible conduct of the games.
This king told them that no Eleian should be allowed to convpete.
Herodotus calls him Psammis (Psammetichus II.), who reigned
594-87 B.c.; and he is a higher authority than Diodorus, who
calls him Amasis, and so brings down the date by twenty-five
years. Herodotus’ story has never been much noticed, or
brought into relation with the other facts here adduced, but
it surely helps to throw light on the question. And there is
yet one more important datum. Pausanias tells us that in
Ol. 50 a second umpire was appointed. If the practice of
official registering now commenced at Olympia, as it certainly
did at Delphi in the Pythian games, we can understand
Pausanias’ remarks about Paraballon and others having

176 ON THE AUTHENTICITY

esteemed it a special glory to leave their names associated with
the victors. For it was a new honour. From this time
onward, therefore, I have nothing to say against the register
which we find in Eusebius.

(2) But as regards the first fifty δια Στ is there any
appearance of deliberate invention or arrangement about the
list of names? Can we show that Hippias worked on theory,
and not from distinct evidence? It is very hard to do this,
especially when we admit that he had a good many isolated
victories recorded or remembered, and as he was a good anti-
quarian, and no doubt worked out a probable list. Thus the
list begins with victors from the neighbourhood, and gradually
admits a wider range of competiturs. This is natural enough,
but I confess my suspicion at the occurrence of eight Messenians
out of the first twelve victors, followed by their total disappear-
ance till after the restoration by Epaminondas. For the sacred
truce gave ample occasion for exiled Messenians to compete at
the games.! J also feel grave suspicions at the curious absence
of Elecian victors. Excepting the first two, there is not a single
Eleian in the list. How is this consistent with Psammis’ remark
to the Eleians? For how could they have avoided answering him
that their fairness was proved by the occurrence of no Eleian as
victor eponymous for 170 years? Many Eleian victors are indeed
noticed by Pausanias in the other events. It is hardly possible
that they could not have conquered in the stadion, but for some
deliberate intention to put forward foreigners. I have sus-
picions about Oebotas, placed in the 6th ΟἹ. by Hippias, but
about the 75th by the common tradition of the Greeks. [Ὁ is
curious, too, that Athenian victors should always oceur in juxta-
position with Laconian. But all these are only suspicions.

(3) I come to the last and most important point; indeed
it was this which suggested the whole inquiry. On what
principles, cr by what evidence, did Hippias fix on the year
776 B.C. as his starting-point? We need not plunge into the
arid and abstruse computations of years and cycles which make
early chronology so difficult to follow and to appreciate. For
one general consideration is here sufficient. Even had we not
shown from Plutarch’s words, and from the silence of all our

‘l Hippias’ false epigram on the Si- shows that the Messenians exiled from
cilian Messenians (above mentioned) Messene were eligible.

OF THE OLYMPIAN REGISTER. 177

authorities, that Hippias could not have determined it by
counting wpwards the exact number of duly recorded victories,
it is perfectly certain that he would not have followed this now
accepted method. All the Greek chronologists—logographers
they are sometimes improperly called—down to Hippias’ day
made it their chief object to derive historical families and
states from mythical ancestors, and they did this by reasoning
downwards by generations. They assumed a fixed starting-
point, either the siege of Troy, or the return of the Herakleids.
From this the number of generations gave the number of years.
Thus we may assume that Hippias sought to determine the date
of the 1st Olympiad by King Iphitus ; he found that he was in
the generation which brought him down to the period 400 years
before himself. .He thus fixed the date of both Iphitus and
Lycurgus. The Spartan chronologers would not accept such a
date for Lycurgus. His place in the generations of Herakleids
put him fully three generations earlier. They therefore
sought means to accommodate the matter, and counted twenty-
eight nameless Olympiads from Lycurgus (and Iphitus) to
Coroebus, Others imagined two Iphiti. But all such schemes
are to us idle; for we may feel certain that the number of
Olympiads was accommodated to the date of Iphitus, and not
the date of Iphitus to the number of Olympiads.

Unfortunately the genealogy of Iphitus is not extant; in
Pausanias’ day he already had three different fathers; and we
cannot, therefore, follow out the @ priori scheme of Hippias in
this instance; but I will illustrate it by another, which stil]
plays a prominent figure in our histories of Greece—I mean the
chronology of the Sicilian and Italian colonies, as given by
Thucydides in his sixth book. He speaks with the greatest
precision of events in the latter half of the eighth century B.C. ;
he even speaks of events which happened 300 years before the
arrival of the Greeks in Sicily. As Thucydides was really not
inspired, he must have drawn these things from some authority ;
and the researches of the Germans have made out with tolerable
clearness that his source was here the work of Antiochus of
Syracuse. This man was evidently an antiquarian no wiser or
more scientific than his fellows; he betrays their method by
dating all the foundations downwards from that of Syracuse.
He was obliged to admit the priority of Naxos, but grants it

H. S.—VOL. I. N

178 AUTHENTICITY OF THE OLYMPIAN REGISTER.

only one year; then he starts from his fixed era. But how was
the date of the foundation of Syracuse determined? Not, as is
often implied, from city registers and careful computations of
years backward from the fifth century. Such an assumption
is to my mind chimerical, and the source of many illusions.
The foundation of Syracuse was determined as to date by its
founder, Arehias, being the tenth from Temenos. The return of
the Herakleidae was placed before the middle of the eleventh
century B.C.; hence Archias would fall below the middle of the
eighth century. The false date of Pheidon of Argos, 747 B.C.,
was fixed in the same way by his being the tenth Temenid, and
hence the 8th Ol. was set down as his celebration. He is now
brought down nearly a century (to 670 Bc.) in date.

Τ will sum up in conclusion the results of this long discussion.
When we emerge into the light of Greek history, we find the
venerable Olympian games long established, and most of their
details referred to mythical antiquity. We find no list of victors
recognised by the early lustorians, and we have the strongest
negative evidence that no such list existed in the days of
Thucydides. Nevertheless about 580 B.c. the feast was more
strictly regulated, and the victors’ names recorded, perhaps
regularly, im inscriptions; from 540 B.c. onward the practice of
dedicating athlete statues with inscriptions was introduced,
though not for every victor. About 500 B.c. we find many
inscriptions (that of Hiero is still extant), and there was ample
evidence from which to write the history of the festival; but this
was never done till the time of the archaeologist and rhetorician
Hippias, who was a native of Elis, with influence and popularity
there, and who even placed new inscriptions on old votive
offerings. This man (about 390-70 B.c.) constructed the whole
history of the feast, partly from the evidence before him, partly
from the analogy of other feasts. He fixed the commencement
of his list, after the manner of the chronologers of his day, by
the date of the mythical founder. Hence neither the names
nor the dates found in Eusebius’ copy of the register for the
first fifty Olympiads are to be accepted as genuine, unless they
are corroborated by other evidence.

J. P. MAWAFFY.

IONIC ELEMENTS IN ATTIC TRAGEDY. 179

ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS IN ATTIC TRAGEDY.

(Continued from Vol. I. p. 292.)

In the former part of this paper I started from the fact that
the use in Attic prose of forms in -oavvos, -ocuvn, is limited by
certain rules as to meaning and etymology, which do not apply
to Ionic literature; and I observed that the usage of the Attic
tragedians followed in these respects the practice of the Ionians.
This being so, I advanced the hypothesis that the tragedians
and their audiences must have been aware of the peculiar
character of these words, and that upon investigation the
passages of tragedy in which they occurred would be found to
have in other ways also an Ionic colour or a special connection
with Ionic language and tradition, which colour or connection
the reader must perceive if he would fully appreciate the tone,
and in some cases the meaning, of the author. So far as the
limit of my space extended this anticipation was, I think,
fulfilled. I showed that in some cases certainly (p. 272), in
others almost certainly (p. 279 foll.), these words were actually
inflected according to the [onic rule. I showed that in one
instance the presence of the word εὐφροσύναις enabled us to
detect a complete quotation from an elegiac poet (p. 264); that
the very scanty fragments which remain to us of some species
of Ionic literature were yet sufhcient to illustrate our corre-
sponding examples in tragedy with great precision (pp. 268, 278) ;
and that in other cases we could not only fairly presume that
such illustration once existed, but could distinguish with some-
thing more than probability (p. 289) the quality of the buried
source,—the maxims of primitive medicine, or the Troezenian
hymns to Hippolytus. We are now to complete the evidence
by some positive additions and some negative corroborations.

N 2

180 ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS

We were last discussing the connection between Ionia and
the language of hero-worship. But the tales and hymns of
the rhapsodists were not the only kind of literature written in
the dactylic metre and Ionic phraseology. In the period
immediately preceding the rise of tragedy was produced a
species of composition borrowing to a considerable extent the
language and method of the bards, but differing widely in tone
from the Epos and its nearer descendants. I speak, of course,
of the Proverbial Poetry. The fragments which have come
down to us are scanty indeed, but we may be sure that they
stand for a large class, and it is specially observable that this
kind of writing was in its day popular in Athens, one of the
greatest names in the art being a name which Athenians
mention with reverence almost religious, that of Solon, the
founder, as he may be called, of the city. Ifthe harp of Homer
and the Homeridae was to the Athenians as the harp of David,
Solon was in their eyes something more than a Solomon.
Here then was another stop in the compass of an Attic
audience which the great masters of their feelings would
naturally desire to draw out, by employing upon fit occasions
the very tones and words which had served to express the
wisdom of their fathers that begat them. Now not only did
the writers of γνῶμαι inherit the forms in -οσυνὴ with the rest
of the rhapsodists’ apparatus, but incidentally their use of these
forms became of very much greater importance, for, as I have
already said, the peculiar character of the words on this model
which ultimately found their way into common prose leaves
little doubt that it was from the ethical proverb-writers that
they were taken, the prosaists when they first employed ethical
abstract substantives being compelled to borrow from the
authors who had given a partial currency to the convenient
suffix of a foreign though kindred dialect. We have already
seen in one example—scarcely I think to be disputed—that the
tragedians actually did cite for their purposes the hallowed
sentences of popular philosophy (Aesch. P.V. 536; see p. 264),
and we marked there the presence of the significant term
εὐφροσύναι. As the gnomic poets are almost entirely lost to
us, we cannot hope to detect quotation unless it goes, as in that
example, to the length of a verse or more, but ¢mitation or
adaptation of the ancient language to the expression of religious

IN ATTIC TRAGEDY. 181

or philosophic sentiments will be happily as much easier
to discover as it is likely to be more frequent and more
interesting.

The instances of our form in Sophokles are, as will appear
before we have finished, four in all, ἀφροσύνη, ἐφημοσύνη (7),
λησμοσύνη, σκαιοσύνη. This considered, it is a noticeable fact
that two of these four occur within twenty lines. In the
Oedipus at Kolonos we find (1211)—

ὅστις TOU πλέονος μέρους
χρήζει τοῦ μετρίου παρεὶς
ζώειν, σκαιοσύναν φυλάσσων
> ’ / ΝΜ

ἐν ἐμοὶ κατάδηλος ἔσται"

and ἃ little below (1229)—

ὡς εὖτ ἂν TO νέον παρῇ
κούφας ἀφροσύνας φέρον,
τίς πλάγχθη πολύμοχθος ἔ-
Ew, τίς οὐ καμάτων ἔνι;

The pathos and dignity of that poem cannot in any case fail
of their impression; but we do not give ourselves the best
possible chance of feeling it as they felt it for whom it was
written, unless we realize that its very language is ‘ biblical’—
no other word will convey the right notion in English—full
of forms and uses, and doubtless, if we could trace them, of
actual phrases belonging to that older poetry of conduct which
had taken possession of the Athenian heart and mind, when
there was no tragedy yet. It is as though one were now to
begin thus—

The fool hath said in his heart,

‘I will love life and seek to see long days.’

It has been already observed that the very peculiar use of
φυλάσσων is ‘Homeric’ (Prof. Campbell, citing Z/. xvi. 30,
χόλος ὃν σὺ φυλάσσεις). But the fact is that most of the
first ‘stanza’ (ὅστις... ἔσται) is ‘Homeric’ in the sense that
the language is that of Ionic poetry, the language of Homer,
transmitted through the epigrams of the sages and coloured
in the channel: ζώειν, for example—that is not Attic, but
‘Epic,’ nor shall we suppose, if indeed such a supposition were
for an instant entertainable, that Sophokles forgot or neglected

182 ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS

the origin of the form if we compare the parallel passages
(Hl. 157, and fr. 685, ed. Dind. 1865)—

οἵα Χρυσόθεμις ζώει καὶ ᾿Ιφιάνασσα,
an Epic hexameter down to the very digamma; and again,

, Ν 3.ϑ 4 “
ζώοι τις ἀνθρώπων τὸ κατ᾽ ἦμαρ ὅπως
ev , \ ’ > ” ΕΝ ς \ [72
ἥδιστα πορσύνων, τὸ δ᾽ ἐς αὔριον ἀεὶ τυφλὸν ἕρπει,

in which the very same characteristics recur, the sententious
meaning, the ancient vocabulary, the fragments easily replaced
of the hexameter rhythm. But look once more at the Oedipus:
between ζώειν and φυλάσσων stands σκαιοσύναν (or -nv 2), not
less Ionic than either: and by the help of this hint we shall
find something to say about τοῦ μετρίου παρεὶς. This we are
‘told to translate ‘letting go of the mean,’ that is disregarding
it. Now it may be that such a metaphor is less clumsy in
Greek than in English, though I hardly think so. It may be
that a verb which took an accusative ninety-nine times might
nevertheless take a poetical genitive in the hundredth; but
this question, so far as fe is concerned, is not to be prejudiced
by false authority. The reader will find in many commentaries
on Sophokles, and in lexicons s.v. παρίημι, a reference to the
Phaedrus of Plato, 235 E, παρέντι...τοῦ ἐγκωμιάζειν. If he is
in the habit of verification he will be surprised, or rather he
will not be surprised, on turning to the place, to read as follows ;
τίνα οἴει λέγοντα ὡς χρὴ μὴ ἐρῶντι μᾶλλον ἢ ἐρῶντι χαρίζεσθαι,
παρέντα τοῦ μὲν τὸ φρόνιμον ἐγκωμιάζειν, τοῦ δὲ τὸ ἄφρον
ψέγειν, ἀναγκαῖα γοῦν ὄντα, εἶτ᾽ ἄλλ᾽ ἄττα ἕξειν λέγειν ; ‘Who,’
asks Socrates, ‘could argue that the cool is to be preferred to
the impassioned suitor, without lauding the good sense of the
former and censuring the absurdities of the latter; or if he did
overlook topics so trite and obvious, what else could he find to
say ?’ (Thompson’s Phaedrus, ad loc.) It would be interesting
to foresee in how many editions of the Oedipus this reference is
destined to appear. But seeing the trouble we are at to main-
tain παρεὶς, and the poor service which it is likely to render,
should we not gain by restoring the last two letters 1G to the
copyists (see Vol. I. p. 285), and taking for ourselves the K of
Sophokles? τοῦ μετρίου mapéx, beyond the mean, is Greek, and
what is more, it is Ionic Greek, Greek of the Jiiad and the

IN ATTIC TRAGEDY. 183

Odyssey, of Herodotos and Hippokrates, of Solon and Theognis,
as ζώειν is and σκαιοσύνη. And since the more we examine
the use of παρίημι the less we shall be disposed to like the
phrase ‘letting the mean go by,’ we shall prefer to use Sophokles
for the correction of Plato, rather than Plato for the perversion
of Sophokles, and shall write in the Laws 691 C, ἐάν τις
μείζονα διδῷ τοῖς ἐλάττοσι παρὲκ τὸ μέτριον (MSS. παρεὶς):
παρὲκ is followed either by the genitive for one preposition, or
by the accusative for the other. An old proverb might well
retain these quaint terms even in Attic, but the scribes did
not see what they were not prepared to see. If it is urged
that παρεὶς TO μέτριον can be construed, though παρεὶς τοῦ
μετρίου cannot, I shall ask the objector to construe Eur.

Ale. 939—

ἐγὼ δ᾽ ὃν οὐ χρῆν ζῆν παρεὶς TO μόρσιμον
λυπρὸν διάξω βίοτον.

Applymg here the analogy of the supposed παρεὶς τὸ μέτριον,
we clearly require παρέντα ; to divide the sentence at ζῆν 1s
dangerous to the sense and utterly ruinous to the rhythm. We
must replace, as in the Oedipus, παρέκ, the substance of the
two passages being almost identical, and the two corrections
thus receiving the strongest mutual support. From all this
it iS clear that the opening of this strophe has at least the
style and phrases of an Ionic γνώμη. That we cannot point to
the source from which Sophokles adapted it is, in the paucity
of our repertory, not strange; much more worth attention is
the fact that the antistrophe opens with a proverb which we
are able to identify—

\ nr \ Mv
μὴ φῦναι τὸν ἄπαντα νι-
Ὁ / Ν eee \ ἊΝ
κᾷ λόγον" τὸ δ᾽ ἐπεὶ φάνη,
fol al ec 4
βῆναι κεῖθεν ὅθεν περ ἧἥ-
κει πολὺ δεύτερον ὡς τάχιστα.

These lines are a close translation, as was long ago seen, of a
very popular saying (πανταχοῦ θρυλούμενον, Eur. fr. 287) of
‘Theognis’ (425 Bergk) :

πάντων μὲν μὴ φῦναι ἐπιχθονίοισιν ἄριστον... ..
4 δ᾽ « Ψ, ΄ ? {δ ce.
φύντα δ᾽ ὅπως ὠκιστα πύλας ᾿Αἴδαο περῆσαι.

184 ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS

(I omit the pentameters, which are not to our purpose, or indeed
to any.) Are we not almost driven to suppose that the strophe
stood in the same relation to some other saying not yet brought
to light, but not difficult to figure in imagination? We can
now see better why the poet introduces lower down the ex-
tremely rare ἀφροσύναι, recalling not only the words but the
thought of the γέρων ἥρως ᾿Αλιθέρσης (Od. xxiv. 456)—

ov yap ἐμοὶ πείθεσθ' οὐ Μέντορι ποιμένι λαῶν,
ὑμετέρους παῖδας καταπαυέμεν ἀφροσυνάων,
οἱ μέγα ἔργον ἔρεξαν ἀτασθαλίῃσι κακῆσιν"

and how to account for πλάγχθη and for φάνη (if that and not
φανῇ is the true reading).

The same tone of religious meditation prevails, and has
determined the same choice of expression, in two fine passages
of the Bacchae. It will be almost sufficient to quote them—

385 ἀχαλίνων στομάτων
ἀνόμου T ἀφροσύνας
τὸ τέλος δυστυχία"
ὁ δὲ τᾶς ἡσυχίας
βίοτος καὶ τὸ φρονεῖν
ἀσάλευτόν τε μένει
καὶ συνέχει δώματα' πόρσω γὰρ ὅμως
αἰθέρα ναίοντες ὁρῶσιν τὰ βροτῶν οὐρανίδαι.

882 ὁρμᾶται μόλις, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως
πιστόν τι τὸ θεῖον
σθένος" ἀπευθεύνει δὲ βροτῶν
τούς τ᾽ ἀγνωμοσύναν
τιμῶντας καὶ μὴ τὰ θεῶν
αὔξοντας ξὺν μαινομένᾳ δόξᾳ.

In both cases it is probable that a more complete collection of
the γνῶμαι as they were known in the time of Euripides would
enable us to illustrate his references more precisely. Judging
by the work of Aeschylus in the Prometheus (see I. p. 264) it
is difficult to resist the belief that Bacch. 385 is a verbal

citation—
στομάτων ἀχαλίνων
>» , > > / / Ν /
ἀφροσύνης τ᾽ ἀνόμου δυστυχίη τὸ τέλος.

IN ATTIC TRAGEDY. 185

The topics are the commonplaces of the Proverbs — the ad-
vantages of evvouin (Solon 3, 33), the power of the gods and
the certainty of their vengeance (Solon 12, 25), the praise of
γνωμοσύνη (Solon 17, Theognis 895), and of σωφροσύνη (passim).
In the second passage Euripides himself has marked his purpose
in an emphatic way. The chorus in which it occurs has, like
that in the Choephoroe above cited (I. p. 269), a burden,
repeated at the end of each division, as follows—

τί τὸ σοφὸν ἢ τί TO κάλλιον

παρὰ θεῶν γέρας ἐν βροτοῖς

ἢ χεῖρ᾽ ὑπὲρ κορυφᾶς

τῶν ἐχθρῶν κρείσσω κατέχειν ;

ὅ τι καλὸν φίλον αἰεί.
Even without the actual quotation at the close (Theognis 17,
cited by Elmsley) we could hardly have failed to remember in
reading these lines the fierce exile of Megara thirsting for
the draught of revenge, and urging himself to merciless
executlon—

τῶν εἴη μέλαν αἷμα πιεῖν (Theognis 346).

οὕτως ἂν δοκέοιμι μετ᾽ ἀνθρώπων θεὸς εἶναι
εἴ μ ἀποτισάμενον μοῖρα κίχοι θανάτου (Id. 540).
εὖ κώτιλλε τὸν ἐχθρόν' ὅταν δ᾽ ὑποχείριος ἔλθῃ
tical νιν πρόφασιν μηδεμίαν θέμενος (Id. 364).
Three times, in addition to the allusions already cited to the
Hippolytean hymns (1. p. 289), Euripides uses σωφροσύνη---
στέγοιϊ dé we σωφροσύνα δώρημα κάλλιστον θεῶν (Med. 635).
μετρίων λέκτρων μετρίων δὲ γάμων
μετὰ σωφροσύνης
κύρσαι θνητοῖσιν ἄριστον" fr. 503 (505) ;
and again,

ἐγὼ δ᾽ οὐδὲν πρεσβύτερον
νομίζω τᾶς σωφροσύνας,
ἐπεὶ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ἀεὶ ξύνεστι. fr. 848 (ed. Dind. 1865).

1 στέγοι Wecklein στέργοι MSS.

186 ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS

Now σωφροσύνη is one of the very few words of the class
which ultimately became part of the current literary medium,
the commonest of all by far, except perhaps δικαιοσύνη. It
is also one of the still smaller group which were regarded as
familiar terms by Thucydides, a group, be it remembered, from
which there are positive reasons for excluding δικαιοσύνη itself.
If then there is a word which the Attic poets of the fifth
century might be expected to use so freely as to obscure all
trace of its origin, it 15 σωφροσύνη. What are the facts ?
Neither Aeschylus nor Sophokles uses it at all. Euripides
uses it In five places. Two of these (see I. 289) are proved
almost by the poet’s own statement to be drawn from an
assignable source, and that source ‘Epic.’ And what of the
other three above quoted? σωφροσύνην δώρημα θεῶν κάλ-
λιστον ἐπαινῶ, αἰνῶ σωφροσύνην κύρσαι θνητοῖσιν ἄριστον.
σωφροσύνης οὐδὲν πρεσβύτερον νομίσας. Is this, or is it not,
the style, language, and sentiment of ‘Solon’ and ‘ Theognis’ 7
Those who know the relics shall decide. And if even cw¢po-
σύνη had not, to the ear of Euripides, so far lost these special
associations, but that it always drew along with it a train of
poetic memories, what is likely to be the case of ἀπιστοσύνη, or
εὐφροσύναι, OY καλλόσυνος ?

The words δικαιοσύνης TO χρύσεον πρόσωπον, or, according
to another version, δικαιοσύνης τηλαυγὲς χρυσοῦν πρόσωπον,
are attributed to Euripides’ Melanippe by the scholiast to
Aristotle (Eth. Nic. v. 2; see Dindorf, Eur. fr. 489, ed. 1865;
490, ed. 1868). The phrase, or rather the context, is cited by
Aristotle, with his usual δοκεῖ, as a common observation. The
form of it can scarcely be fixed with certainty, but the simplest
way seems to be to combine the MSS. and write—

δικαιοσύνης τηλαυγές TE χρύσεόν [TE] πρόσωπον"
that is,

τηλαυγές τε δικαιοσύνης χρύσεόν TE πρόσωπον.
The scholiast gives, it seems, the form in 7, which we may
safely retain in such cases whenever we can find it, whatever
may be our best course as to alteration.

. I may close this part of the subject appropriately with an
example which combines the qualities of the two classes last

IN ATTIC TRAGEDY. 187

investigated, being both a proverb and a thought proper to the
rhapsodists, Eur, H, 1. 676—

μὴ ζῴην μετ᾽ ἀμουσίας,
ἀεὶ δ᾽ ἐν στεφάνοισιν εἴην.
ETL TOL γέρων ἀοιδὸς
κελαδεῖ Μναμοσύναν᾽

ἔτι τὰν «Ηρακλέους
καλλίνικον ἀείδω

παρά τε Βρόμιον οἰνοδόταν
παρά τε χέλυος ἑπτατόνου
μολπὰν καὶ Λίβυν αὐλόν'
οὔπω καταπαύσομεν
Μούσας, αἵ μ᾽ ἐκόρευσαν.

The old men are regretting their vanished youth—da νεότας
μοὶ φίλον: ἄχθος δὲ τὸ γῆρας ae(—but rejoicing, like their
coevals in the Agamemnon, that it has left them the powers οὗ
poetry and song. Zhe bard, we know, still in his old age renowns
his patron Memory; (ΔΙνημοσύνην ἔτι τοι κεχαδεῦσι γέροντες
ἀοιδοί). So will I still sing the triumph-song of Herakles with
aid of lyre and wine, and not yet put aside the Muses, who
fostered my youth, being of course the patrons of μουσικὴ or
education. The reader may perhaps recollect that I promised
(I. p. 283) some remarks upon the verb κορεύω (= παιδεύω, see
Eur. Ale. 313, and cf. κόρος, κόρη), which, as I pointed out,
has been expelled from Jon 1083 by the familiar yopedw. He
will, in that case, divine that the MSS and editions here give
exopevoav—the Muses who set me daneing. The difference in
point of sense between the two verbs is in my judgment simply
the difference between the beautiful and the grotesque. It
is useless to argue a point of taste, and a mere point of
taste it is, for im two other places (see I. p. 283, and inf.
p- 207) χορεύω has replaced κορεύω, and here the corruption
would be more than usually facile from the occurrence of
χορεύω in a transitive sense twice in this same play (1. F.
871, 879).

τάχα σ᾽ ἐγὼ μᾶλλον χορεύσω Kal καταυλήσω φόβῳ : With
horror, says the demon Frenzy, J will pipe thee anon to a wilder
dance ; and again,

188 ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS

paviacw Λύσσας χορευθέντ᾽ ἀναύλοις : dancing to Frenzy’s
fit unmusical. It is therefore practically certain that whether
κορεύω or yopevw were the original word, our MSS. in such a
case as this would exhibit the second, and the choice between
the two must therefore be made without the aid of authority.

We now enter upon a somewhat different field. We observed
in the Persae (I. p. 267) a passage in which the Ionic forms and
vocabulary are introduced, not because the subject of it is
drawn from Ionic literature and thus specially associated with
that dialect, but because the sentiments expressed are those
of the living Ionians, the Asiatic contemporaries of the poet.
We also found (ibid. p. 268) that in the Hecuba the Asiatic
women (see the list of dramatis personae) of the chorus are
made to employ the same language, and in particular the
adjectives δεσπόσυνος and δουλόσυνος, in a way which it seemed
reasonable to attribute not to chance, but to the deliberate
purpose of giving to their part a colour appropriate to their
supposed origin. We are now to see whether the same theory
will give or gain light in other cases. We are able to test
it by a decisive example. Euripides has introduced in the
Orestes a strange and ludicrous figure which can only be described
as a caricature in Greek pigments of the typical Oriental or
Asiatic character. The person is a Phrygian slave, brought
home by Menelaos after the sack of Troy, and he enters flying
in terror from the sword of Orestes. His Oriental dress (1370),
speech (1397), and habits (1427), and above all his more than
Oriental cowardice (1518), are vividly painted, and the antici-
pated contempt of the audience is expressed through the chorus
and the other actors (1425, σύ δ᾽ ἦσθα ποῦ τότ᾽, ἢ πάλαι
φεύγεις φόβῳ). Now this personage is hardly upon the stage
when he gives vent to a burst of lamentation for the fall of
his native city, and this lamentation contains within the short
space of six lines the adjective καλλόσυνος and the substantive
ἱπποσύνη. There is nothing else like it in tragedy, and though
it is somewhat obscure for want of illustration from literature
now lost, and from other causes, it is well worth quoting, that its
character may be directly perceived (1381)—

Ἴλιον Ἴλιον, ὦμοι, μοι
Φρύγιον ἄστυ καλλίβωλόν 7

IN ATTIC TRAGEDY. 189

AND ” € Ν ee | , /
ας ὄρος ἱερὸν, ὥς σ᾽ ὀλόμενον στένω,
ἁρμάτειον ἁρμάτειον

, a
μέλος βαρβάρῳ βοᾷ,
δὲ ὀρνιθόγονον ὄμμα κυκνόπτερον
καλλοσύνας Λήδας σκύμνου δυσελένας,
ξεστῶν περγάμων ᾿Απολλωνίων
ἐρινύν" ὀτοτοῖ᾽
3 , > /
ἰαλέμων ἑἰαλέμων
Δαρδανία τλάμων Γανυμήδεος
ἱπποσύνας Διὸς εὐνέτα.

The peculiarity of this language and of much else in the scene
is too palpable to be missed, but these signal instances deserve
our most careful examination, as it is in them that we must
recover the laws of style and diction which to the Greek audience
were matters of instinct. Otherwise we shall miss their applica-
tion, and with it much of the poet’s power, in places where the
shade of distinction is more subtle and therefore more interesting.
For example, the song of the chorus in the Andromache,

ὦ Φοῖβ᾽ ὁ πυργώσας, κ.τ.λ.,

in many respects an exceedingly beautiful composition, should
appear to us as full of idiom and character as the Cotter’s
Saturday Night. It exhibits in 1016 τεκτοσύνας and in 1031
μαντόσυνον, two such forms in a score of verses. 1 doubt
whether there is a parallel to this throughout the tragedians,
except in the ὅστις τοῦ πλέονος μέρους of the second Oedipus
(see above, p. 181) and the Phrygian’s dirge just cited from the
Orestes. We may therefore feel certain that here also this
unusual freedom is no careless licence, especially as the song
is full of words and forms actually traceable to the ‘ Asiatic’
dialect, as well as others which we may assign to the same source
by probable guess. We have within thirty-seven short lines
᾿Ενυαλίῳ, δοριμήστορι, ἀπὸ δὲ φθίμενοι, βασιλῆς, παλάμαι
(violence, outrage), ἀπηύρα, κτάνεν, μέλποντο, ἐκ δὲ λεῖπον (as I
think we should read in 1040, not ἐκ δ᾽ ἔλειπον), εὐνήτορα.
and, most remarkable of all, the Homeric subjunctive with
the short vowel —

ὦ δαῖμον, ὦ Φοῖβε, πῶς πείθομαι ;

which if we translate as a deliberative tense (How am J to belier«

190 ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS

it 2), we must also parse as such! In fact, including the forms
in -oguv-, there is something ‘ Epic’ in almost every clause, even
if we do not count the mysterious ἀγόρους for ayopas, and
κέλωρ, son. Now the main subject of this song is the very
same as that in the Orestes—a lamentation for the fall of
Troy—

Ὁ Φοῖβ᾽ ὁ ov ἐν ᾿Ιλίῳ εὐ ἢ πάγον, καὶ TOVTLE
ὦ Φοῖβ᾽ ὁ πυργώσας τὸν ἐν ᾿Ιλίῳ εὐτειχῆ πάγον, καὶ πόντι

κυανέαις
ἵπποις διφρεύων ἅλιον πέλαγος,
9
τίνος οὕνεκ᾽ ἄτιμον ὀργάναν χέρα τεκτοσύνας E-
νυαλίῳ δοριμήστορι προσθέντες τάλαιναν
τάλαιναν μεθεῖτε Τροίαν ;

The chorus however are not Orientals, but women of Phthia,
so that at first sight this example seems to abate from the
significance of the others. But a closer examination of the
play will show that Euripides was not thus forgetful of himself.
It is the special character of the chorus in the Andromache that
they are Phthiotes in whom the woman has prevailed over the
Hellene, and whose sympathies are with the oppressed and
forsaken Asiatic princess against her Spartan rival. This is their
cue from the first (117)—

ἃ \ / /
ὦ γύναι, ἃ Θέτιδος δάπεδον καὶ ἀνάκτορα θάσσεις
δαρὸν, οὐδὲ λείπεις,
Φθιὰς ὅμως ἔμολον ποτὶ σὰν ᾿Ασιήτιδα γένναν,
εἴ τί σοι δυναίμαν
lal / al
ἄκος TOV δυσλύτων πόνων τεμεῖν,
Δ \ \c U4 μὴ nm /
of σὲ καὶ Ἑρμιόναν ἔριδι στυγερᾷ συνέκλῃσαν.

In this particular ode this feeling is altogether predominant,
the tragedy of the house of Atreus being introduced indeed,
but entirely in subordination to the main Trojan theme.
The singers therefore are Trojan for the nonce, and it is
but natural that the language employed should be that which
by origin and literary use was appropriate to the sorrows of
Ilion. The fact that the great Greek dialects were, as I before

1 This might be removed by the stitute the proclivius for the arduwm,
correction, very slight from a palaeo- The present indicative appears to me
graphical point of view, πείσομαι. quite impossible.

(€ for @.) But then this is to sub-

IN ATTIC TRAGEDY. 191

put it, at once provincial and classic, enabled the poet to
introduce such Janguage without absurdity.

What cause brought into Jph. Taur. 1280 the word μαντοσύνη
or ἀληθοσύνη, Nauck (whichever of the two corrections we accept
for the MS. λαθοσύνη), it is not sv easy to say ; inde-t the whole
ode in which it occurs, with its Pythian legend and allusions, is
difficult to account for or to connect with the plot of the play—
a fact, whatever may have been said to the contrary, most
unusual in the extant works of Euripides. For us, however,
it would be enough to say that it was the same cause which
brought there the numerous Epic turns and phrases in which the
narrative abounds. It will be sufficient to cite the conclusion—

γέλασε δ᾽ [Ζεὺς], ὅτι τέκος ἄφαρ ἔβα
πολύχρυσα θέλων λατρεύματα σχεῖν,

ἐπὶ δ᾽ ἔσεισεν κόμαν, παύσειν νυχίους ἐνοπὰς
ἀπὸ δὲ μαντοσύναν νυκτωπὸν ἐξεῖλεν βροτῶν,
καὶ τιμὰς πάλιν

θῆκε Λοξίᾳ,

πολυάνορι δ᾽ ἐν ξενόεντι θρόνῳ

θάρση βροτοῖς θεσφάτων ἀοιδαῖς.

As a mere conjecture I should suggest that the dramatist
probably took the story of the suspension and restitution of
the Apolline worship from a Delphic or Delian hymn, and pre-
served for the sake of its associations some of the phraseology
of his original.

We will now consider the few instances in which the form in
-οσυνὴ appears without its usual accompaniments. ἀπειροσύνη
occurs in Med. 1094 and Hipp. 196, passages of almost pure
Attic, and so thoroughly characteristic of their author that
direct allusion or imitation cannot be suspected—

καί φημι βροτῶν οἵτινές εἰσιν
πάμπαν ἄπειροι μηδ᾽ ἐφύτευσαν
παῖδας, προφέρειν εἰς εὐτυχίαν
τῶν γειναμένων.

οἱ μέν T ἄτεκνοι OL ἀπειροσύνην
εἴθ᾽ ἡδὺ βροτοῖς εἴτ᾽ ἀνιαρὸν
παῖδες τελέθουσ᾽ οὐχὶ τυχόντες
πολλῶν μόχθων ἀπέχονται"

οἷσι δὲ τέκνων K.T.X.

192 ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS

ἀλλ᾽ 6 τι τοῦ ζὴν φίλτερον ἄλλο
σκότος ἀμπίσχων κρύπτει νεφέλαις.
δυσέρωτες δὴ φαινόμεθ᾽ ὄντες

τοῦδ᾽, ὅτι τοῦτο στίλβει κατὰ γῆν,
δι’ ἀπειροσύνην ἄλλου βιότου

κοὐκ ἀπόδειξιν τῶν ὑπὸ γαίας"
μύθοις δ᾽ ἄλλως φερόμεσθα.

The first of these passages might perhaps rather have been
classed under the rule than with the exceptions, for in the very
line containing the word in debate we find the palpable Ionism
μέν te for μὲν (so all the MSS. the excision of the 7’ is wholly
unwarrantable, cf. I. p. 285). But for all that the two cannot
conveniently be separated, and differ essentially from those in
the Ocdipus at Kolonos or the Bacchae, which we have previously
examined,

It appears that ἀπειροσύνη is extant in Euripides only, though
it is perfectly safe to suppose that the gnomic poets furnished
him with examples of it. But assuming that, his manner of
using it is none the less exceptional, for the sentiments are
certainly not ‘hymnic,’ nor even ‘gnomic,’ though there is a
solemn and religious tone in them which probably went for
something in guiding the style. But as the fixing of the limits
of Attic use in the matter of -οσυνὴ must have proceeded like
other linguistic processes, gradually and by way of experiment,
some words must, from the nature of the case, have been upon
the doubtful line. Now there are points in which ἀπειροσύνη is
less remote from Attic than most of the forms we have been
considering. Convenience, which gradually forced a few of
these Ionian words into circulation, seems in particular to have
protected a certain number of negative compounds. I have
already called attention to the plea which Thucydides puts in
for ἀφροσύνη (Vol. I. p. 262), and a similar need may well
have assisted the diffusion of ἀγνωμοσύνη and ἀνεπιστημοσύνη.
How otherwise was the contrary of ἐπιστήμη to be expressed ?
In this way the Attic ear would become accustomed to negatives
of this type; and as Attic poetry admitted the form ἀπείρων
(stem dzrecpov-) as well as ἄπειρος, we might expect even
according to the stricter Attic laws of formation (I. p, 262)
to find ἀπειροσύνη as a synonym of ἀπειρία. ἀπειροσύνη,

IN ATTIC TRAGEDY. 193

therefore, may well have stood, so to speak, upon a more
familiar footing than καλλόσυνος, τεκτοσύνη, Or even ἀπιστοσύνη
(ἀπίστων being inconceivable). These passages from the
Medea and the Hippolytos seem to prove that it did, and being
‘on the line’ in subject as well as in language, may even be said
to support our other evidence by the ‘method of concomitant
variation.’

But no such explanation applies to the use of ἐφημοσύνᾳ in
Soph. Phil. 1144. The place has given much trouble, and it is
worth while to consider whether the necessity which we must
now feel of accounting for so unusual a form will suggest
any fresh way of dealing with the difficulties of the context.
Philoktetes has been exclaiming with passionate invective
against the absent Odysseus, whom he figures to himself as
exulting in the success of his device for employing Neoptolemos
to steal the famous bow. The chorus defend Odysseus by point-
ing out that the scheme was undertaken trom no selfish motive,
but for the benefit of his compatriots of the Greek army—

κεῖνος δ᾽ εἷς ἀπὸ πολλῶν
\ aQ? 3» /
ταχθεὶς τοῦδ᾽ ἐφημοσύνᾳ
\ ” bd ᾽ /
κοινὰν ἤνυσεν ἐς φίλους ἀρωγάν.

Professor Paley in his recent edition rightly makes it the
first condition for interpreting these lines that τοῦδε must refer
to the then-present Neoptolemos. This is decisive against
τῶνδε, the only otherwise plausible correction suggested.
Professor Paley himself concludes thus, ‘Perhaps τοῦδε
ἐφημοσύνᾳ means ‘by the ordering of, 1.6. by orders given to,
Neoptolemos. Thus the sense is simple enough: Ulysses has
used the services of this young man in assisting his friends.’
This I believe to be very near the truth. The reason for
the ‘perhaps’ was, I presume, that ἐφημοσύνη, command, or
uyunetion, seems, both by its nature and according to the
usage of the Epos, from which it comes, not well fitted to
govern an objective genitive, To this we must now add that
if Sophokles had meant so simple a thing as a command he
would not have gone to a rare and artificial vocabulary for a
word to express it. These prima facie objections will be
avoided if we understand τοῦδ᾽ ἐφημοσύνᾳ to mean ‘by setting
him on,’ that is, by working him up to an act from which he
Η. S.—VOL. II. 0

19: ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS

was disposed to recoil, a sense which ἐφίημε not unfrequently
bears in Homer; for example—

ἣ δὴ λοίγια ἔργ᾽, ὅτ᾽ ἐμ’ ἐχθοδοπῆσαι ἐφήσεις

ΠΕ Cl. ΟΣ
or again,

καὶ χόλος ὅς τ ἐφέηκε TeAUHpovda περ χαλεπῆναι.

To ἐφιέναι τινά the substantive corresponding is ἐφημοσύνη
τινός, nor 15 there any other word by which the idea could be
50. well rendered. It is also quite appropriate to the part
which Ulysses actually plays. I seem to see, however, certain
further objections, which I submit for consideration. First,
Attic usage does not justify this special rendering of ἐφίημι ;
secondly, Epi usage, if that is the proper standard, is against
rather than for the extension of it to ἐφημοσύνη ; and thirdly,
a difticulty which I myself feel more strongly than either of
these, it is after all scarcely to the point. Philoktetes reviles
Odysseus not for overcoming the scruples of Neoptolemos but
for practising a trick upon himself. Why therefore should
the sailors refer to the other aspect of his conduct in their
defence? What the context requires them to say 15 undoubtedly
that Odysseus has, in the words of Professor Paley, ‘used the
services of this young man. Shall I be pardoned for my
temerity if I offer, as a solution, the reading τοῦδ᾽ ὑφημοσύνᾳ,
by suborning him? To set another to act for vou a deceitful
part, which you cannot play in person, is in the language
of Sophokles ὑφιέναι τινά, as we read in the Oedipus Tyrannus
(385)—

ταύτης Κρέων ὁ πιστὸς, OVE ἀρχῆς φίλος,

λάθρα μ᾽ ὑπελθὼν ἐκβαλεῖν ἱμείρεται,

ὑφεὶς μάγον τοιόνδε μηχανορράφον.
Now it is exactly m this way that the services of Neoptolemos
are used ; he is put forward, as Odysseus explains to him (70 foll.),
because he is an unsuspected person ; this 1s the imposition which
Philoktetes resents (1007)—

of αὖ μ᾽ ὑπῆλθες, ὥς μ᾽ ἐθηράσω, λαβὼν

πρόβλημα σαυτοῦ παῖδα τόνδ᾽ ἀγνῶτ᾽ ἐμοί---
and this is tle imposition which the chorus, on grounds of
patriotism, excuse. To the accident that ὑφημοσύνη is not

IX ATTIC TRAGEDY. 125

extant, I attach, I will say plainly, no importance whatever,
unless it can be maintained that we should doubt how to
translate it if we found it; for I am convinced that in the
cautious use of analogy lies our only way to the truth out of
many a perplexity, and we have the analogy both of ἐφημοσύνη
and of μεθημοσύνη. Here the hypothetical ὑφημοσύτνη will
explain everything, the case of τοῦδε, the counection with the
context, and the unusual form, for nothing but a verbal noun
devived from ὑφίημι would serve the supposed intention of the
poet, and ὕφεσις, ἔφεσις, κάθεσις are from a more prosaic
repertory. The substitution of ἐφημοσύ:η, familiar from its
occurrence in the received text of Homer, would be almost
inevitable.

The employment of ἀφροσύνη in Eur. Zro. 990, has no
bearing upon the present questiou—

id \ 7 eeE Ἢ A » “2 σ 7 :
ὁ σὸς δ᾽ ἰδών νιν νοῦς ἐποιήθη Κύπρις
\ A \ , Vals ‘ , / A
Ta μῶρα yap πάντ᾽ ἐστὶν Adpodityn βροτοῖς,
» » lal / » rn
καὶ τοὔνομ᾽ ὀρθῶς ἀφροσύνης ἄρχει θεᾶς.

Etymology knows nothing of literary associations. It would be
satisfactory to think that the last pedantic and ill-expressed
couplet was an Alexandrine note upon the grand verse which
precedes it. but as 990 is cited by Aristotle in the Rhetoric as
an example of the τόπος ἀπὸ ὀνόματος, or play upon a name,
and double interpolation is scarcely to be supposed, it must
remain among the proofs that Euripides was misled by a
fashion for which he had little sympathy or approbation.

Lastly, in ph. Taur. 439, we must allow an exception ; tle
adjective δεσπόσυνος appears to be used without such other
peculiarities as we should expect to attend it. Iphigenia
(in 354) regrets that chance has not brought her enemies,
Menelaos or Helen, to the fatal Tauric shore, to die by her hand,
and her servants echo her wish :—

el?’ εὐχαῖσι δεσποσύνοις
Λήδας ᾿Ελένα φίλα
παῖς ἐλθοῦσα τύχοι.
Would that our mistress’ prayer night bring hither Helen /

Xenophon (see Lex. s.v.) has the adjective in prose, which shows

-hat by his day it had acquired a certain vogue, though by no
0 2

196 ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS

means that it would not have been avoided by a purist in Attic.
It may well have been introduced by the slaves, large numbers
of whom must have first spoken Greek in Asia, and may have
been passed here as a piece of slave language. I need perhaps
hardly observe that to accept this explanation for the Iphigenia
need not affect our opinion in the case of the Choephoroe
(I. p. 269): there is hardly a line im the later play which could
be fitted into the earlier so as to escape observation.

I have now examined every certain example in tragedy
which I have been able to discover. Most of them give strong
support to the position that from Aeschylus to Euripides the
forms in -οσυνὴ τοσυνος were not of the common Attic
currency, but were used with consciousness of their Ionian
origin for special effects; the few cases which do not furnish
positive evidence for this view have been shown to be not
inconsistent with it. |

But if the Athenian poets admitted in their plays certain
very convenient words, under conditions of style determined
by contemporary usage and not to be perceived by a foreign
or an inattentive reader, imitators of those poets would
certainly adopt the convenience and ignore the conditions.
It is easy to show that this actually occurred. When Euripides
wrote the first and fourth epistles to Archelaos he no doubt
took down his private copy of his own plays, and finding there
both μεγαλοφροσύνη and φιλοφροσύναι, addressed to the
monarch these elegant observations :—

τοὺς δ᾽ ἄλλους [ἐνομίζομεν] αὐτὸ τοῦτο δὴ Kal μάλιστα
συκοφαντεῖν ἐπιχειρήσειν ὡς ἐπίδειξιν οὖσαν τὸ πρᾶγμα......-
οὐ μεγαλοφροσύνην οὐδεμίαν.

καὶ μάλιστα τοὺς κατὼ τέχνας σπουδαζομένους...μετακαλεῖσ-
bal σε πανταχόθεν, καὶ χορηγίαις τῶν ἐπιτηδείων ἀφθόνοις καὶ
ταῖς ἄλλαις φιλοφροσύναις τημελεῖν.

Whether the poet wished to play the courtier in the newest
fashion, or forgot for the moment that φιλοφροσύναι was sheer
rhapsody, or thought rhapsody as good as prose for a barbarian
like Archelaos, are questions which we need not decide. That
he should have offered to his Athenian audience the line—

οὔκουν ἐάσω σ᾽ ἀφροσύνῃ τῇ σῇ Oaveiv.—Iph. A. 1431,

IN ATTIC TRAGEDY. 197

might surprise us more, if it were not that all the latter part
at least of the Jphigenia at Aulis must either have been written
by Euripides in his sleep, or freely recast and interpolated by
other hands, and if it were not that 1431, with most of the
scene in which it occurs, has been banished or suspected by
editors quite unsuspicious of ἀφροσύνη. For the same reason
we shall not be too careful to consider 761 of the same play—
\ = re oy | > /

τὰν Κασσάνδραν ἵν᾽ ἀκούω

Εἰ \ /

ῥίπτειν EavOovs πλοκάμους

/ / ’ὔ

χλωροκόμῳ στεφάνῳ δάφνας

κοσμηθεῖσαν, ὅταν θεοῦ

μαντόσυνοι πνεύσωσ᾽ ἀνάγκαι.

It is quite possible that Euripides might put a touch of
Epic colour into a Trojan theme, though it is not after his
manner, as we have already seen, to give one such dab in a
composition otherwise as plain as need be. But what is the
use of discussing subtleties of Attic and Ionic with an author
who in 782 writes πολύκλαυτος ἐσεῖται, and in 789—

στήσουσι Tap ἱστοῖς
μυθεῦσαι τάδ᾽ ἐς ἀλλήλας 1

Of course this has been emended, but the whole composition
is hopeless. We may, no doubt, save the credit of the first
strophe and antistrophe in the ode, including the lines on
Kassandra, by rejecting the remainder (so the Poetae Scenici,
ed. 1865); but who is to warrant that the author of the completion
left the commencement untouched, or that the whole is not a
mere compilation, a little more successful in one part than in
the other? Such feather evidence is not worth putting into
the scale. So again upon Soph. Trach. 1264-1278 we read
that ‘suspicions have been entertained, not without reason,
of the genuineness of the concluding anapaestics assigned to
Hyllos. The rule, observed in nearly all the extant tragedies,
was for the chorus to utter two or three or more sententious
anapaestic verses in concluding the subject of the drama.’
These suspicions will certainly not be weakened by such an
opening as this—

αἴρετ᾽, ὀπαδοὶ, μεγάλην μὲν ἐμοὶ

τούτων θέμενοι συγγνωμοσύνην,

18 ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS

77 \ A > ,
μεγάλην δὲ θεοῖς ἀγνωμοσύνην
εἰδότες ἔργων τῶν πρασσομένων.

No one who studies the efforts which have been made to justify
this language as that of Sophokles will be sorry to be absolved
from the necessity of doing so.

In all these cases the fact of forgery, interpolation, or meddling
of some kind has been sufficiently plain without the fresh
evidence which I adduce. But there are one or two others,
equal'y obnoxious to criticism from our new point of view,
upon which scrutiny has not yet been directed. These we
must now examine, and I thmk I can promise the reader some
curious results. In dramatic literature there 1s no more effective
cause of corruption than the carelessness or necessities of actors,
and with regard to Euripides in particular we know that the
text sutfered from this kind of injury, and that the ancient
critics endeavoured to protect and restore it (Scholia to Eur.
Med. 228). The remodelling of which the closing scenes of the
Trachinine and the Aias show traces was probably made for
spectacular purposes. But there is in Greek drama one kind
of device specially liable to suspicion on this ground, the ‘tag,’
namely, or cue, which sometimes serves as a passage from a choral
ode or other interlude to a fresh scene. Half-a-dozen lines
announcing the approach of the new person or persons might
often save an awkward pause and make things easy to an
indolent audience. It is remarkable, to say the least, that three
such passages offend against the custom of the tragedians in
the use of the Ionic abstract—

(1) καὶ μὴν ὅδε σὸς Evyyovos ἕρπει
ψήφῳ θανάτου κατακυρωθεὶς,
ὅ τε πιστότατος πάντων Πυλάδης
1010 ἰσάδελῴφος ἀνὴρ ἰθύνων νοσερὸν
κῶλον ᾿Ορέστου
ποδὶ κηδοσύνῳ Tapdcetpos.—Eur. Orestes, 1013-1018.

It is of course plain that 1016 as it stands was not written
by Euripides. The usual expedient for rectifying it has been to
assume the loss of πέλας, τοῦδ᾽, or some other metrical equivalent
before ἐθύνων, and to omit (with only one MS of importance)
᾿Ορέστου in 1017. But the mention of Orestes is natural, not

iN ATTIC TRAGEDY. 199

to say necessary, and vocepoy κῶλον without the genitive is
hardly intelligible. Moreover there are at least four opinions
(prebably many more) as to what the word inserted before
ἐθύνων should be, a tolerably plain indication that none is
desirable. We shall do better to observe the abundant reasons
for assigning the whole net to Euripides, but to a very different
workman, who may have written it as it stands. The strange
construction ψήφῳ θανάτου κατακυρωθεὶς has attracted atten-
tion before ; considering that it is the vote and not the person
which is the object of ratification, the classical idiom suggests
or demands ψῆφον. But the substitution of the dative for the
accusative in these its more subtle uses has other examples in
later Greek, for instance, Hpistle to the Hebrews, vi. 5, οἵτινες
ὑποδείγματι Kal σκιᾷ λατρεύουσι τῶν ἐπουρανίων. If the
meaning be (as is scareely to be doubted) whose service is a
Jigure and shadow of the heavenly, Euripides would have written
ὑπόδειγμα καὶ σκιάν. Then icaderxpos—that Euripides could
not have used this word I should not like to assert, but I can
find no parallel to it of any date within a century of his; and
that it is characteristic of late Greek as opposed to classical can
be distinctly proved. If the dictionaries are to be trusted, the
compounds of ἔσος in classical writers relate always to equality
proper, that is, to equality between things which can be
measured—heights, lengths, forces and the like—and not to mere
resemblance. The question is complicated by the fact that the
schohasts and glossologers, so well known to them was the
difference between the use of the ancients and that of their own
time, regularly explain the classical compounds of ἀντί-, which
signify resemblance as distinct from equality, by similar
compounds of ἴσος. Thus on ἀντίδουλος, Aesch. Cho. 135;
ἀντίπετρος, Soph. O. H. $92; and ἀντίλυρος, id., Trach. 643 ;
the interpreters give ἰσόδουλος, ἰσόπετρος, ἰσόλυρος. In default,
therefore, of classical examples which do not allow the reading
ἀντι-, we cannot be sure that éco- is not a gloss or a careless
substitution of the later form; in one such case, Aesch. P. V.
549, ἰσόνειρον, the long syllable is actually required, and
ἀντόνειρον, has accordingly been restored by Reisig. (That
Aeschylus should have imitated the Homeric ἐσόθεος in a non-
Epic word appears to me wholly improbable.) So in Eur. 07.
200, Porson reconstructed from the MSS the line ὀλόμεθ᾽

200 ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS

ἰσονέκυ᾽ ὀλόμεθα, but the metre of the strophic line, τὸν
᾿Αγαμεμνόνιον ἐπὶ δόμον, equally admits the reading ἀντινέκυε.
Pollux (see Soph. frag. 329) cites as from Sophokles’ Kretisa
the word icofavatos, but pronounces it οὐ πάνυ ἀνεκτόν. ΑΒ
to the general difference between the earlier and later uses
there is no doubt whatever. We have ἰσόδενδρος αἰών (Pindar)
a life as long as a tree’s; πορφύρας ἰσάργυρος κηκίς (Aeschylus)
purple weighed or valued against silver; ἐσοτράπεζος κάκκαβος
(Antiphanes) a pot as big as the table; ἰσομάτωρ ἀμνός
(Theokritos) a lamb as dig as its mother ; ἰσόπαις, ἰσόπρεσβυς
ἰσχύς (Aeschylus) strength equal to a boy’s or an old man’s;
isoxivduvos (Thucydides) strong enough for the danger; ἀρχὴ
ἰσοτύραννος a government of despotic force (?) (Aristotle).
Even ἰσόνειρος, ἰσόνεκυς, and ἰσοθάνατος, if they were of
certain authority, might be derived from the idea of weight,
and rendered light (i.e. unsubstantial), as dreams, ghosts, or death.
But we must descend to the ecclesiastical writers, the lexico-
graphers, and the scholiasts for ἰσάστερος star-like, ἰσόξυλος
wood-like, ἰσόπτερος swift as a wing, ἕο. So a Greek of the
fifth or fourth century might say ἐσομήκης, ἰσοπαχής, ἰσοσθενής,
but not ἰσογνώμων (Cyril). The Homeric ἐσόθεος probably
meant in the first place a match for gods in strength and
stature, and afterwards, or at the same time, the equal of gods in
rank, an idea indeed not very clearly marked off from the other.
So Aeschylus calls Darius μακαρίτης icodaiuwv βασιλεὺς, and
Thucydides has ἐσοδίαυτος living as an equal, metaphors having
a physical analogy in ἰσοχειλής (liquid) level with the rim.
In Aesch, Ag. 1470, the reading ἰσόψυχον is as uncertain as
the interpretation (see notes there). In Sophokles, /r. 334, is
mentioned an insect called ὄνος ἰσόσπριος, but, apart from the
doubt between ἰσόσπριος and ἀντόσπριος, there is no reason
why the epithet should refer to the shape of the creature, and
not rather to its size. Now ἰσάδελφος, brotherly, is of the late
type, the type of ἰσάστερος and ἰσογνώμων, and when we find
this unique example along with ψήφῳ θανάτου κατακυρωθεὶς
we can but remark that it is in very appropriate company.
But further, a tragedian with such a leaning to Alexandrine or
post-Alexandrine grammar and morphology would naturally
prefer the prosody of the same epoch, and would find no difficulty
in abbreviating the ὁ of ἐἰθύνω as ‘a late poet in the Anthology’

IN ATTIC TRAGEDY. 201

(see Liddell and Scott 5.0.) actually does. We cannot, perhaps,
attribute to an educated Greek of any period the abbreviation
of the v, and may reasonably hope that he wrote ἐθύων.
Euripides, indeed, would have found this anapaest little better
than the other, but as Nicander, for example, abbreviates θύω
it would be unkind to quarrel with an anapaestic ἐθύων in the
author of ποδὶ κηδοσύνῳ tapdceipos. It is a pleasure to
believe that the poet of the Medea and the Bacchae is not to be
loaded with this wonderful metaphor, which is ἀδελφὸς if not
ἰσάδελφος to the rest of the passage.

(2) The intrusion of ἁβροσύνη in 349 of the same play is
a mark that the cue which introduces the entrance of Menelaos
was supplied by the same ingenious hand.

Kai μὴν βασιλεὺς ὅδε δὴ στείχει
Μενέλαος ἄναξ, πολλῇ ἁβροσύνῃ
δῆλος ὁρᾶσθαι

τῶν Τανταλιδῶν ἐξ αἵματος ὦν.
ὦ χιλιόναυν στρατὸν ὁρμήσας

ἐς γῆν Ἀσίαν

χαῖρ᾽, εὐτυχίᾳ δ᾽ αὐτὸς ὁμιλεῖς
θεόθεν πράξας ἅπερ ηὔχου.

The detection of this interpolation would have been less easy
but for the strong presumption supplied by the other. To say
the truth, our poet rises to such a very unambitious height
that he has hardly room to hang himself. He has not how-
ever escaped altogether. The rhythm of πολλῇ ἁβροσύνῃ
(Lv evvv—) is a monster in Euripides, and it is not likely
that he would have abbreviated either the y or the a, though
some justification might be found for each. The usual escape
has been correction, but nothing even plausible has been sug-
gested, and the words are in point of sense perfectly right. Or
rather they are as right as anything short of expelling ἁβροσύνῃ
would make them. For it would be easy to show that, in the
language of Euripides and his compeers, to apply this word or
any of its kindred to a Greek and a soldier, particularly when
alluding to his Asiatic descent, would have been little short of
an insult, which the chorus, who have the instant before pro-
fessed their utter loyalty and devotion to the house of Tantalos,
certainly did not intend. The imitator found ἁβροσύνη some-

202 ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS

where in his Furipides, and did not see that it was used with
an emphasis, an Asiatic word for an Asiatic thing. It is
curious to notice, not as a proof of forgery, but as an illustration
of its many perils, that im the lines which the interpolation
follows and imitates the expression is

/ \ μ᾿ ΄ 53 ”
τίνα yap €TL πάρος οἶκον ἄλλον
ἡ \ /
ἕτερον ἢ τὸν ἀπὸ θεογόνων γάμων,
Ν > \ 4 f / he
τὸν ἀπὸ Ταντάλου σέβεσθαί με χρή ;

The imitator, for the convenience of his metre, writes ἐξ
αἵματος ὧν, not ἀπὸ, and it is quite credible that he might have
justified this from that complete Hwripides which we are not
likely to see ; but so far as our evidence extends the expression
ἐξ αἵματος εἶναι was not so Euripidean as ἀφ᾽ αἵματος εἶναι, for
there is no clear instance of ἐξ (ἐξ αἵματος γεγόναμεν, Aesch.
Theb. 141, may be distinguished), while ἀπὸ occurs repeatedly
(Soph. O. C. 245, ὥς τις ad’ αἵματος ὑμετέρου, Eur. Or. 198,
Ale. 509, 638). In Jon 693 the reading is doubtful.

(3) Of the third case to which I refer I would not be under-
stood to speak confidently. It occurs in the Antigone, 376-383.

2 / / ’ r
ἐς δαιμόνιον τέρας ἀμφινοῶ

’ lal »
τόδε, πῶς εἰδὼς ἀντιλογήσω

͵7ὔ > > 5 “ΟΣ, 9 /
τήνδ᾽ οὐκ εἶναι παῖδ᾽ Ἀντιγόνην.
ὦ δύστηνος καὶ δυστήνου

\ ’ /
πατρὸς Οἰδιπόδα,
’ ᾽ lo)

τί ToT ; οὐ δή που σέ γ᾽ ἀπιστοῦσαν

- / Yj ,
τοῖς βασιλείοισιν ἄγουσι νόμοις

Ἂς 5 Ι] / u
καὶ ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ καθελόντες ;

For ἀφροσύνη here I do not see any reason; intentional
Tonism is out of the question, and the ideas being rather
commoner than commonplace, it is impossible to plead, as in
the case of ὑφημοσύνη (or ἐφημοσύνη) in the Philoktetes, the
necessities of the thought. That this peculiarity should pre-
sent itself in lines so similar to the manifest interpolations of
the Orestes is a very curious coincidence, and if these anapaests
contain little that Sophokles might not have written, they
assuredly contain nothing which wanted a Sophokles to write it.
As a matter of taste, if taste were a safe ground for criticism,
we might well prefer that the excited soldier and his prisoner

IN ATTIC TRAGEDY. 203

should enter without announcement, as Kreon does, for example,
in the Oedipus Tyrannus (512). The lines on the whole are a
trifle better than those in the Orestes, but they are not nearly as
good as the burden in the Choephoroe (see Vol. I. p. 269), and all
imitation need not be equally unsuccessful. After all, the
author, Sophokles or not, has little to boast of, for his careless-
ness goes to every length short of downright solecism. The
use of the colloquial and somewhat irreverent exaggeration
divine miracle for strange wonder is in the style of Aristophanes
and Plato’s dialogues, but not of the tragedians, and no place
could be less suitable for it than this. In tragedy δαιμόνιος,
which is quite common, always has its proper sense, belonging to
or proceeding from the gods, and τέρας is not a wonder merely,
but «@ prodigy, such as the sphinx or the goldenram. Then
again what does καθελόντες mean? Evidently having caught
or seized. But why does Sophokles here prefer the usage of
the Ionic Herodotos and the semi-Attic Xenophon to that of
Aeschylus, Sophokles himself, Euripides, Thucydides, Aris-
tophanes, Plato, Demosthenes, who are apparently agreed that
καθελεῖν means to pull down, destroy (or in legal parlance
to condemn)? Sophokles very likely adopted this language
with great propriety elsewhere, just as he certainly adopted
ἀφροσύναι: but why here? Again, τοῖς βασιλείοισι νόμοις
means, I presume, the king’s orders. But vowos, in the literary
language of the fifth century, signifies not orders, but customs
or principles, the parent and not the offspring of authority. It
is needless to illustrate so familiar a fact. Not even the gods
create νόμοι, but act by them. It will perhaps be thought that
this is a small confusion. But small or not I cannot match it,
and there is special reason against it in the Antigone. The
very point upon which the play centres is the desire of the
tyrannical king to make his fiat, his personal command, overbear
certain νόμοι or established principles of morality. He himself
indeed seeks to justify his command by reference to other
principles, with which he declares them to be consistent,

τοιοῖσδ᾽ ἐγὼ νόμοισι τήνδ᾽ avEw Toh”
los “-“ »
καὶ νῦν ἀδελφὰ τῶνδε κηρύξας ἔχω,

(191), but he dares not speak of ‘my principles’ (ἐμοὶ νόμοι),
nor do his subservient subjects call them ‘his,’ nor does

204 ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS

Antigone. Such language is indeed somewhat painfully
avoided. At 447 foll. Professor Campbell paraphrases thus,
‘Knew you of the edict that forbade this deed? I knew.
And were you then so hardy as to outstep our law?’ (the
italics are mine)—falling almost inevitably imto the phrase
which the original escapes,

δ \ f \ ΄ /
Hons TA κηρυχθέντα μὴ πράσσειν τάδε; .. ..
καὶ δῆτ᾽ ἐτόλμας τούσ δ᾽ ὑπερβαίνειν νόμους ;

It is a little surprising to hear the chorus in the interval
between the two passages last cited talk in an off-hand way
about ‘disobeying the king’s principles.’ Why again in a
passage of simple Attic have we the Doric genitive Οἰδιπόδα ?
When Sophokles wrote thus he may very well have written
ἀφροσύνῃ too. I believe myself that the lines are interpolated,
though they may very likely be much older, as they are
certainly less offensive, than the similar cues in the Orestes.

Since, however, ἀφροσύνη undoubtedly became in the end a
common Attic word, and together with its contrary σωφροσύνη
must have been among the earliest to find its way through
ethical speculation into general use, there is no one of the Ionic
abstracts which we should be less surprised to find in the
tragedians already divorced from its original associations. All
the more remarkable is it if, as a fact, there is hardly an indis-
putable case. I find but one more instance, which occurs in
the dialogue between Kadmos and Agave concerning the body
of Pentheus, Eur. Bacch. 1297-1305.

AT. Διόνυσος ἡμᾶς ὥλεσ᾽" ἄρτι μανθάνω.
ΚΑ. ὕβριν γ᾽ ὑβρισθείς. θεὸν γὰρ οὐχ ἡγεῖσθέ νιν.
ΑΓ, τὸ φίλτατον δὲ σῶμα ποῦ παιδὸς πάτερ ;
1800 ΚΑ. ἐγὼ μόλις τόδ᾽ ἐξερευνήσας φέρω.
ΑΓ. ἢ πᾶν ἐν ἄρθροις συγκεκλῃμένον καλῶς ;
Πενθεῖ δὲ τί μέρος ἀφροσύνης προσῆκ᾽ ἐμῆς ;
KA, ὑμῖν ἐγένεθ᾽ ὅμοιος, οὐ σέβων θεόν.
τουγὰρ ξυνῆψε πάντας ἐς μίαν βλάβην,
1305 ὑμᾶς τε τόνδε θ᾽, ὥστε διολέσαι δόμους.

The Bucchae was one of the very latest of Euripides’ plays,
and the use of ἀφροσύνη as a common word may be only
another indication of the date. But it is strange that once

IN ATTIC TRAGEDY. 205

more we are conducted δαιμονίᾳ τινὲ τύχῃ to a passage which
has perplexed criticism and of which nothing can be said with
certainty except that as τέ stands it did not proceed from its
alleged author. In all recent texts the mark of a lacuna will
be found between 1301 and 1302, and I agree with Professor
Paley that several lines would probably be required to fill up
the abrupt gap to the smoothness of Euripidean dialogue. The
transition from 1298 to 1299 is very little better. The grammar
of 1301 is odd (ἐν ἄρθροις), not to mention the sense, and
συγκλήω, to connect, appears to have parallels only in writers of
a later generation, Plato, Xenophon, and Isokrates, though in
other senses the verb is found in Euripides and his contem-
poraries. Then again 1302 itself is superfluous, not to say
absurd, as it asks a question which has already been answered
in 1294—

ἐκερτόμει θεὸν ods τε βακχείας μολών.

If the body of Pentheus was πᾶν ἐν ἄρθροις συγκεκλῃμένον
καλῶς, the description of it certainly is not. If we were bound
to have a theory on the subject, one way of restoring the con-
tinuity—quite as probable, I think, as any other—would be to
omit as spurious 1299-1303 inclusive, thus—

AT. Διόνυσος ἡμᾶς ὦλεσ᾽" ἄρτι μανθάνω.
KA. ὕβριν γ᾽ ὑβρισθείς. θεὸν γὰρ οὐχ ἡγεῖσθέ viv"
[AT. τὸ φίλτατον δὲ σῶμα ποῦ παιδὸς, πάτερ ;
KA, ἐγὼ μόλις τόδ᾽ ἐξερευνήσας φέρω.
ΑΓ, ἢ πᾶν ἐν ἄρθροις συγκεκλῃμένον καλῶς"
Πενθεῖ δὲ τί μέρος ἀφροσύνης προσῆκ᾽ ἐμῆς ;
KA, ὑμῖν ἐγένεθ᾽ ὅμοιος, οὐ σέβων θεόν"
τοίγαρ ξυνῆψε πάντας ἐς μίαν βλάβην.

The insertion might again be accounted for as actor’s work.
Agave, we know, afterwards pronounced a θρῆνος over the several
limbs of the body (see notes on 1330), though the passage is
not in our copies, and we have no means of criticizing its
genuineness. An express reference at this point to the body
and its condition would be a convenient sign for the necessary
stage-dispositions. It will be seen that the lines in brackets
contain just this reference and no more, with a clumsy return
to the point of departure. The detailed criticism of the
Bacchae however is out of our present scope. It is sufficient

06 ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS

to point out that any evidence drawn from this passage must
remain utterly uncertain.

Uncertain also, or something below uncertainty, is the fol-
lowing from the Helena (381 foll.)\—

. 7 3, 5 7

ἅν τέ ToT Ἄρτεμις ἐξεχορεύσατο,

χρυσοκέρατ᾽ ἔλαφον, Μέροπος Τιτανίδα κούραν
καλλοσύνας ἕνεκεν.

The heroine compares the vicarious penalty inflicted for her
beauty upon Troy with that which other famous women of old
story suffered in their persons, being changed by amorous or
jealous gods into the shapes of animals. I am not prepared to
discuss the criticism of the whole passage, and I ought perhaps
to dismiss it with the remark that καλλοσύνη is natural enough
in a fragment apparently taken word for word from some
version of the story in hexameters. But this extract of ‘ Meta-
morphoses’ (Hel. 375-385), with its frigid allusions and arti-
ficial jargon, is so distasteful to me that I cannot resist the
pleasure of pointing out what I take for a little sign that it
is not the work of my favourite poet. We are told to render
381 thus, ‘She too whom Artemis once thrust forth from the
dance on account of her beauty.’ What the dance was, or why
it is mentioned, no one pretends to guess; but let that pass.
Let it also be assumed (though it is but barely possible) that
Ovid, when he wrote of Callisto, deque suo jussit (Diana) decedere
coctu, actually intended to render é£eyopevoato, which he had
here or elsewhere seen. I shall still ask for evidence that the
verb ever had or could have the meaning assigned to it. ἐκ-
χορεύειν, as numberless analogies show, might in classical
Greek signify either to make to dunce out, or to make to dance
violently, the force of the preposition being in the one case
local, in the other intensive ; é«Baxyevw, for example, has both
of these significations. Or again, if we found such an expres-
sion as ἐκχορεύειν χόρον, to disband a chorus, we might possibly
justify or at least interpret it by parallels drawn from Alex-
andrine or post-Alexandrine writers, but not from classical. Thus
we find (I rely upon the lexicon) ἐκ χωνεύειν, to unmint, melt
down coin for the purpose of recoining it (Dion Cassius) ; ἐκ-
σαγηνεύειν, to unnet, take out of the toils (Plutarch) ; ἐκπαρθεν-
evewy, to unmaiden, deflower (Scholiast to Lucian) ; ἐκπολιτεύειν,

IN ATTIC TRAGEDY. 207

to deconstitute, revolutionize (Septuagint) ; éxduppeverv, to dis-
chariot (cp. dis-bench, dis-bar), throw from a chariot (Lucian).
But neither late nor early do we find anything resembling
ἐκχορεύειν τινα, to dis-dance or dis-chorus a person, and indeed
such a mode of speaking seems to me utterly fatuous and un-
imaginable. The reader may foresee whereto all this tends.
For the third time (see p. 187 supra) we must restore the rare
κορεύω for the common χορεύω and read—

ee , a a, ’ '

av τέ ποτ᾽ Ἄρτεμις ἐξεκορεύσατο
/ Di Ms

χρυσοκέρατ᾽ ἔλαφον, K.T.A.—

She whom Artemis did once for her beauty’s sake dismaiden, that
is, deprived of her maiden form by changing her to a deer.
This is plain sense, and it is Greek,—of a kind, for the analogy
of ἐκπαρθενεύειν and ἐκπολιτεύειν is precise (see also Liddell and
Scott s. vw. ἐκκορέω and xopévowar: the last is, by its sense,
almost certainly a mistaken reading for éxxopevouat). But
whether it is the Greek of Euripides is another matter. Isaeos
is said to have used ἐκπλινθεύω, to take bricks out—this is the
best support I can find, and a sorry one it is in every way.
Aristotle has ἐξομηρεύειν τινά, to take hostages of a man, but
the comparison of ἐξορκοῦν, ἐξορκίζειν raises a doubt whether
e€- has here its privative sense at all. Besides, Aristotle and
Euripides are scarce cater-cousins. It is noticeable that verbs
of any form made with éx- or é&- privative are rare in the
classical period ; there is ἐκσκευάζειν χωρίον, to strip a farm of
its moveables (Demosthenes) ; ἐξικμάξειν and ἐξυγραίνεσθαι, to dry
(Aristotle and Theophrastos) ; ἐκλωπίζω, to strip (Sophokles) ;
and a set of unsavoury compounds from the comedians and
physicians, ἐκποκίζειν, ἐκκορίζειν, ἐκκοιλίξειν, ἐκπυεῖν, ἐκκο-
πρεῖν. ΑἸ] these describe thé removal of something material, and
the preposition retains, as in ἐκκαλύπτω, which is of course
perfectly classical, a local sense. Euripides himself has (7).
545)—
ἡμεῖς δὲ Πολύβου παῖδ᾽ ἐρείσαντες πέδῳ
ἐξομματοῦμεν καὶ διόλλυμεν κόρας.

But what a difference in clearness, simplicity, and everything
which distinguishes pure idiom, between ἐξομματόω and
ἐκκορείω!

208 ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS

The history of this verb κορεύω is extremely instructive, as
showing the great danger of negative arguments based upon
mere absence of evidence. The sole example of it cited in the
lexicon is Eur. Ale. 313. Yet we see—if I have satisfied the
reader—that it is to be found in at least three other places
under the disguise of the more familiar yopevw. It is obvious
that if the Alcestis had perished, or if in Ale. 313 χορευθήσει
had given the least appearance of sense, we should have been
left without a single instance of κορεύω except such as criticism,
proceeding upon the analogy of παῖς : κόρος (κόρη) : : παιδεύω,
might have recovered for us. What would have been the just
value in that case of the objection that we must not invent
words ?

However, I must go back to my theme, and take up the next
and last example with which we are directly concerned.

ὦ γάμος ὦ γάμος, ὃς τάδε δώματα

καὶ πόλιν ὥλεσας ὦλεσας ἀμὰν,

αἰαῖ αἰαῖ. ᾧ παῖ,

μήποτε σῶν λεχέων τὸ δυσώνυμον
1190 ὠφελ᾽ ἐμὸν γένος ἐς τέκνα καὶ δόμον

ἀμφιβαλέσθαι

“ρμιόνας ᾿Αἴδαν ἐπὶ σοὶ, τέκνον,

ἀλλὰ κεραυνῷ πρόσθεν ὀλέσθαι,

μηδ᾽ ἐπὶ τοξοσύνᾳ φονίῳ πατρὸς
1195 αἷμα τὸ διογενές ποτε Φοῖβον

βροτὸς ἐς θεὸν ἀνάψαι (Eur. Androm. 1186 ὯΙ. ἡ.

This is the second part of a lament in two strophae with which
Peleus receives the body of Neoptolemos brought back from
Delphi, where Orestes has caused him to be murdered for the
sake of his wife Hermione. The chorus announce its approach
in the usual anapests,

ΒΝ

καὶ μὴν ὅ ἄναξ ἤδη φοράδην
Δελφίδος ἐκ γῆς δῶμα πελάζει, κ.τ.λ.

The quotation is one of the toughest morsels in the Poetae
Scenict. I transcribe the note of a recent English editor upon
1189. ‘These words are difficult. Hermann gives aden’ ἐμοὶ
γέρας, xrX., ‘would that the honourable privilege of her couch
ill-omened (Andromache, ἡ ἀνδρὶ μαχομένη) to my son and

IN ATTIC TRAGEDY. 209

family had not brought with itself against you (Neoptolemus)
the fate which Hermione designed against Andromache.” In
fewer words, “ Would that your union with the captive Andro-
mache, which was a γέρας ἐξαίρετον, v. 14, had not involved
you in the death intended for her.” Nothing indeed can be
more harsh than a marriage “ putting on death,’ .6. bringing a
fatal end on a person-—unless it be the construing ᾿Ερμιόνας
γένος instead of “Ἑρμιόνας “Aidav, as Pflugk does... Matthiae
gives quite a different sense, μήποτε ἐμὸν γένος σῶν λεχέων
(Molossus, the child of Andromache by Neoptolemus) ὥφελεν,
κτλ., “Would that my descendant had not caused (by Her-
mione’s jealousy of Andromache’s fruitfulness) Neoptolemus’
death.” W. Dindorf appears to acquiesce in this; and it seems
hopeless to extract any better sense out of the words. (Paley.)
Here then we are offered a fair field, or even favour, for new
suggestions. And first, as it is naturally upon Hermione that
the thunder is invoked in 1193, and in such an antithesis as μὴ
.... ἀμφιβαλέσθαι ἀλλὰ πρόσθεν ὀλέσθαι a change of subject
dislocates the syntax, we can hardly be wrong in writing
Ἑρμιόναν ἀΐδαν ἔπι col. The use of ἐπὶ with the accusative
to signify the purpose or end of an action is widespread,
though not very common (see Lex. s.v.). In the Jon of Eu-
ripides, for instance, we find (1250)

πρόσπολοι, διωκόμεσθα θανασίμους ἐπὶ σφαγὰς.

There is therefore no reason why in a careless piece of writing
—and that, as we shall see, all this part of the Andromache
is—aidSav ἔπι σοὶ, wnto thy death, should not stand for ἐπ᾽
ὀλέθρῳ σῷ, the pronoun going of course grammatically with the
whole sentence, though in sense with the words nearest to it.
Such a freedom is not near the audacity of the imitator in
the Iphigenia in Aulis (1269)—

ov Mevérews με καταδεδούλωται, τέκνον,
οὐδ᾽ ἐπὶ τὸ κείνου βουλόμενον ἐλήλυθα,

ΠΟΥ am I come unto his willing, i.e. to execute his will. The

misapplication of ἔπι to col instead of to ἀΐδαν would readily

cause the alteration of the case of “Ἑρμιόναν. We may now

perhaps find our way to a somewhat less harsh interpretation
H. §.— VOL. 11. ιν

210 ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS

of ἀμφιβαλέσθαι. When Hermann explained δυσωνυμον as
referring to the ominous name Ἀνδρομάχη, he was remembering
the δυστρώπελος δυσώνυμος of Sophokles’ Αἴας (914). But
to follow the thought of Peleus, we should rather recall the
δυσώνυμα λέκτρα, or scandalous wedlock, of Sophokles’ Oedipus
(Col. 528), and refer δυσώνυμος, not to nwme, but to the other
sense of ὄνομα, fume. For the scandal of Neoptolemos’ bed
(τὸ σῶν λεχέων δυσώνυμον) is the very pith and matter of the
play. He had married Hermione while still retainmg under
his roof (932) his Trojan wife Andromache and her child, and
by this marriage incurred the hatred of Orestes, which, together
with the anger of Phoebus, caused his destruction. The whole
action turns upon the offence and danger of such double con-
nexions (see especially the reflexions of the chorus, 464 foll.),
and to illustrate this fully would be to copy out half the piece.
Peleus, therefore, wishing to execrate the second alliance, could
not do so more naturally than thus—pyor ὠὦφελεν “Epptovav
ἀμφιβαλέσθαι τὸ δυσώνυμον σῶν re yéwv, Would that Heriione
had ne'er taken upon her (the oniy legitimate rendering of
ἀμφιβάλλομαι͵ the scandal of thy bed. The metaphor may be
a little affected, but it is not at all out of place here, where the
author chose, with or without reason, to adopt (τοξοσύνη) a
rhapsodical turn of language ; for the metaphorical use of ἀμφε-
GBadrevv belongs to the old poetry (//. xvii. 742) and is imitated
in the dactylic couplets which occur in this same play (110).
But what now is to become of the words ἐμὸν γένος ἐς τέκνα
καὶ δόμον ἢ In the sentence, as I have tried to explain it, there
is only one possible construction for them: they must stand in
apposition to τὸ δυνώνυμον σῶν λεχέων, defining and explaining
the phrase. Now the scandal of Neoptolemos’ matrimony lay,
as we said, not in taking two women successively, but in the
union of the two and the intended union of the double offspring
in a single household. This was the essential description of it ;
and this I propose to find here by the alteration of ε to o—
ὁμὸν γένος ἐς τέκνα καὶ δόμον, the common children and the com-
mon house (more literally the family comimon in respect of children
and house). The phrase ὁμὸν γένος is clipped, not without injury
in the process, from the Lliad (xiii. 354),

a \ >’ ΄ ς \ / >») /
ἢ μὰν ἀμφοτέροισιν ὁμὸν γένος, ἠδ᾽ ἴα πάτρη,

IN ATTIC TRAGEDY. 211

so that here also our author with his tofoovvn and his
ἀμφιβαλέσθαι is at all events swi similis, The whole will now
stand thus—

μήποτε σῶν λεχέων TO δυσώνυμον

ὠφελ᾽, ὁμὸν γένος ἐς τέκνα καὶ δόμον,

ἀμφιβαλέσθαι

“Ἑρμιόναν ἀΐδαν ἔπι σοὶ, τέκνον,

ἀλλὰ κεραυνῷ πρόσθεν ὀλέσθαι.

The order of the sentence cannot conveniently be inverted, so I
will change ἀμφιβαλέσθαι in translation—Would that ere the
scandal of thy bed, the common children and the common house,
came upon Hermione to thy destruction, O my child, a thunder-
bolt had sooner struck her dead !

The sentence is not remarkable for elegance or perspicuity
(neither is most of the scene); but, as far as I can see, it is
perfectly good Greek, and in substance it expresses exactly the
meaning required.

Whether this part of the Andromache has been touched by
another hand than that of Euripides, and if so to what extent,
are questions not to be settled off-hand, perhaps not determinable
at all. Many critical difficulties would disappear if we could
assume that the anapaests and the two strophae assigned to
Peleus (1166—1196) are due to unauthorised or hasty re-
modelling—the careless grammar of δῶμα πελάζει (1167), the
homoeoteleuton κύρσας--- συνέκυρσας (1171, 1172), the elision
of the ae in λείπετ᾽ ἐν οἴκοις (1178), and the two cases (1174 =
1187 and 1180=1193) in which the dactylic metre of the
strophe and antistrophe corresponds by feet only, and not by
syllables, as generally in finished work. All or most of these
have been removed by corrections, but when the number and
the nature of the errors is considered it may be doubted
whether we are not thus trying to rise above our fountain. In
one case at least correction seems an unsatisfactory remedy.
The MSS give in 1179-80,

ΑΗ, ΄ > \ , /

ὦ σχετλιος παθέων ἐγὼ, ἐς τίνα

δὴ φίλον αὐγὰς βάλλων τέρψομαι ;
ὦ φίλιον στόμα, κ.τ.λ.

and in the antistrophe,

212 ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS

“ρμιόνας Aidsav ἐπὶ σοι τέκνον
ἀλλὰ κεραύνῳ πρόσθεν ὀλέσθαι"
TL aN ΄
μηδ᾽ ἐπὶ τοξοσύνᾳ, κ.τ.λ.

Hermann, assuming the necessity of syllabic AU BSUS
wrote in the strophe—

ὦ σχέτλιος παθέων ap’ ἐγὼ φίλον

ἐς τίνα βάλλων τέρψομαι avyas ;

But surely the order of the words in the MSS is natural and
necessary, and the order given to them metri gratia quite per-
verse, not to mention the dubious ἄρα. Perhaps ‘ Euripides’
was content with a correspondence by feet. I can but indicate
here one line of argument, from which different critics might
draw different conclusions. There are very good reasons for
considering the authorship of this scene of the Andromache in
connexion with the authorship of the Rhesus. It is not merely
that in that play we have a scene almost exactly similar—the
anapaests (Rhes. 882-889), the dirge in two strophae of the
mother, as here of the father, over the body of a son (Khes.
895-903 and 906—914) separated, as here, by the choric
couplet (Rhes. 904, 5, Andr. 1184, 5) and exhibiting like this
the extremely rare word φοράδην (hes. 888, Andr. 1164). All
this might be explained by the hypothesis of imitation. But
it is strange, if the author of the Ahesus had no hand in the
prelude and dirge of the Andromache, that he should reproduce
from them in widely different places two remarkable peculi-
arities. The chorus in Andr. 1169 speak of the dead Neo-
ptolemos as τὸν Ἀχίλλειον σκύμνον. Now Euripides does apply
to human beings this name for the young of animals, but, as we
should rather expect, it is the language of contempt and hatred.
The Phrygian in the Orestes speaks of the destroyer of his race
as Helen, the evil chick of beauteous Leda’s brood, καλλοσύνας
Λήδας σκύμνον δυσελέναν (1388), and in the same play Orestes
proposes to catch the miscreant’s cub (ἑλεῖν σκύμνον ἀνοσίου πατ-
pos), intending the capture of his enemy’s daughter Hermione. It
seems an attempt to get force at the expense of simplicity when
the Phthiotes are made to express compassion for their gallant
old prince in the words,
δέχει yap τὸν ᾿Αχίλλειον

A > ΕΣ > « \
σκύμνον ἐς οἴκους οὐχ ὡς σὺ θέλεις.

IN ATTIC TRAGEDY. 213

But we know one poet who would not have quarrelled with
it, and that was the poet who wrote (Rhes. 381)—

μέγας ὦ βασιλεῦ, καλὸν, ὦ Θρήκη,
σκύμνον ἔθρεψας πολίαρχον ἰδεῖν.

To the same armoury of poetic weakness belongs αὐγαὶ for
ὀμμάτων αὐγαὶ (Andr. 1180). Of this ‘synonym for ὀφθαλμοί,
redolent of the Gradus, there were, I believe, until lately two
examples only, this and the following from the Hhesus (736)—

΄ = Ss 139 n ΄, > > ,
τίς εἶ TOT ἀνδρῶν συμμάχων ; κατ᾽ εὐφρόνην
ἀμβλῶπες αὐγαὶ, κοὔ σε γυγνώσκω τορῶς.

We may now add a fragment in M. Weil’s recently published
papyrus—
“Ῥαδάμανθυν, ὅσπερ ἄφθιτος παίδων ἐμῶν,
ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν αὐγαῖς ταῖς ἐμαῖς ζόη σφ᾽ ἔχει"
Ν \ \ \ , » ” ,
τὸ μὴ παρὸν δὲ τέρψιν οὐκ ἔχει φίλοις.

For I do not myself feel the least doubt that this is the right
correction of the MS ayas (Rhein. Mus. N. F. xxxv. 275,
auctore Kock). However, a phrase already fortified by the
Rhesus and the Andromache need not beg authority from a
score of lines in a prologue of ‘ Euripides,’ scribbled, one
would think, as an imposition by an Egyptian school-boy who
could not spell. And on the other hand not fifty prologues,
if we had them, in Euripides’ own autograph, need prevent us
from whispering that beams for eye-beams is an objectionable
licence, and well reserved for prologues, cues, and such like
theatrical trimmings.

I have noticed two places—and others have probably escaped
me—in which the Ionic form has been admitted or suggested
as a correction. These should, I think, be reconsidered. In
Aesch. P. V. 579, ταῖσδ᾽ évéfevEas εὑρὼν ἁμαρτοῦσαν ἐν
πημοναῖς, the substitution of πημοσύναις for the MS πημοναῖσιν,
involving the hypothesis of a word mysteriously lost from the
antistrophe (ἃ μαραίνει we χρίουσα κέντροισι φοιταλέοις),
depends entirely upon the presumption that φουτάλεος could
not have a long a. If this is the quantity which it has ac-
cording to the MSS both here and in Eur. Orest. 327, the only
two examples in tragedy, and in both places the quantity is the

214 ON SOME IONIC ELEMENTS

real ground for suspicion, the presumption itself might be
disputed. The correction, at all events, must appear doubtful
when we see that both to Aeschylus and to Euripides πημοσύναι
was a term of poetic medicine, and signified disease or disorder,
for such a hint would effectually ruin the poetry of Io’s com-
plaint. In Aesch. Supp. 845, δεσποσύνῳ for the MS δεσποσίῳ
will be a little less likely to obtain the admission which has
not yet been accorded it.

I will now give a brief summary of our results. Of the
examples extant in the tragedians of words in -οσυνος, -oovvn,
one, Kur. 770. 988, in which ἀφροσύνη furnishes an etymological
interpretation of ᾿Αφροδίτη, may for the present purpose be
set aside. The remainder may be distributed thus—

I. Formal imitations of hexameter and elegiac poetry. 1770.
592; Andr. 109. |

II. Reminiscences of the gnomic poets, ranging from direct
quotation of whole lines down to translation or adaptation of
phrases. Κγ͵κοθδι Ὁ. (δ. 1211, 1229; Bacchaasaw ena,
Med. 635; Βα, fr. 490, 505, 848. Almost all of these appear
independently certain, all of them by their mutual illustration.

III. Express references to the rhapsodists and rhapsodic
poetry. Med. 422; Jon 1100; H. F. 679.

IV. Terms of invocation from the ὕμνοι. Bacch. 375; Hipp.
1365 ; Eur. fr. 447; Phoen. 190. The last passage forms a
transition to

V. Passages of a religious character in which adaptation
cannot be proved by internal evidence, but may be presumed
upon the analogy of class IV. Theb. 111, 240; Ant. 148.
I mean that ταρβόσυνος φόβος, λησμοσύνην θέσθαι, are
probably old religious phrases, and chosen for their respective
places on that ground.

VI. Passages in which the language generally is Epic, the
subject being an incident from the Epos, and the poet having
partly followed the style of the original. Andr. 1015, 1031 ;
Iph. T. 1280. Under this head may be placed (whether they
are the pure work of Euripides or no) the allusions in Hel. 383
and Andr. 1194.

VII. Terms of ‘physic’ connected with the Ionian schools,
and used in speaking of them or their subjects—mnuoovvar
certainly technical in Eur. 2)". 902 and in Aesch. P. V. 1058 by

IN ATTIC TRAGEDY. 215

inference ; ἀφροσύνη in a special’ physical sense, Hipp. 161;
τερμοσύνη, Soph. fr. 658. By whom these terms had been
used before we can only guess, but the evidence for their purely
Ionic character is more than usually obvious (see Vol. I.
p-' 272).

VIII. Passages in which the author has expressly noted the
fact that the speaker is an Asiatic, and the language is certainly
or possibly adopted to the character, certainly in Or, 1388, 93,
probably in Hec. 102, 447, 1294 (see however Jph. T. 439).
With these may be placed Pers. 587.

IX. Genuine instances not falling under any of the above
heads, and apparently exceptions to the rule: ἀπειροσύνη, Med.
1094, Hipp. 196; ὑφημοσύνη (ἐφημοσύνη), Phil. 1144. I have
tried to show that the first two examples are really applications
of the rule in a more subtle way, while the third is a true and
very instructive exception, the word being borrowed from an
unusual and as it were foreign vocabulary, only in order to
express a peculiar and uncommon notion, for which no other
word was at hand. Jph. T. 439.

X. Passages offending against the rule which have already
been pronounced spurious or suspicious on other grounds;
spurious: Jph. A. 1431; Trach. 1265, 1266; suspicious: [ph. A.
761; Bacch. 1302.

XI. Passages offending against the rule which have not been
previously suspected, but are certainly or probably spurious ;
certainly: Or. 349, 1018; probably: Ant. 383; Choeph. 942.
Let the reader consider the nature of these four passages, the
resemblance of the first three, and the fact that every one is of
such a kind that upon suspicion of interpolation the limits and
cause of it can be at once assigned, and let him then estimate
the probability that four passages chosen at hazard would
exhibit these qualities, and he will perhaps think that these
four could scarcely be saved from such a mutual impeachment
if the internal evidence in the separate cases were as favourable
as it is actually fatal.

But indeed upon the whole case the evidence of the excep-
tions seems overwhelming for the validity in some sense of the
rule. The proposition is that a certain form had in the writers
of a particular period a certain stylistic quality. This propo-
sition, as asserting a tendency only, and that tendency liable

216 IONIC ELEMENTS IN ATTIC TRAGEDY.

to fluctuation and progressively changing, might well be correct,
not universally, but for the most part. Now out of fifty cases
the inconformable cases cannot with every allowance be raised
much above fifteen, and out of these from seven to nine must
upon independent grounds be ejected altogether from the list.
It is not a chimerical principle which will produce such a table
as this; and if the principle is true, it is essential to the proper
understanding and criticism of the tragedians, and may also,
I hope, suggest a new and interesting chapter in the history of
the language.

A word or two by way of note upon the former part of the
paper. Mr. D. B. Monro, criticizing the first volume of this
Journal in the Academy, suggested that I should do well to
mark off carefully from the other examples those which, ac-
cording to my distinction in Vol. I. p. 264, were ‘recent or
contemporary importations from the living Ionic’ I should
have done better still not to mention them, though I did so
ex abundante cautela; for upon consideration I believe that
there are none, but that all the words in -οσυνὴ used by the
tragedians were inherited from some previous form of Ionic or
quasi-Ionic poetry, and carried, as a rule, associations not local
merely but literary.. I also wish to call attention to a curious
lapse in the Troezenian poet, whose invocation to Hippolytus
I give in Vol I. p. 290. The writer, a recent rhapsodist, has
been misled by the recollection of the Homeric θεὸς ὥς into
lengthening the last syllable of πάντας before ὅστε, but this
prosody is of no authority. The error does not affect the
matter in hand.

A. W. VERRALL.

THE PENTATHLON. 217

THE PENTATHLON

PROFESSOR GARDNER'S article on this highly interesting
subject in the last number of the Journal of Hellenic Studies
gives so excellent a summary of its data, and reasons upon
these data so judiciously, that the few remarks I venture to
offer here are intended to be supplementary much rather than
critical.

First, as to the ἅλμα, or Long Jump. Mr. Gardner says:
“ὑπὲρ τὰ ἐσκαμμένα πηδᾶν was proverbial for describing a long
leap. What were these éoxaupéva? The scholiast to Pindar
(Nem. v. 34) says that after every leap a fork was drawn across
to mark its length, so that he who leaps beyond all marks
distances his rivals. This seems the natural explanation of the
phrase.’ Now the scholiast’s words are, ἡ δὲ μεταφορὰ ἀπὸ τῶν
πεντάθλων, οἷς oxaupmaTa σκάπτονται ὅταν GANwYTAL’ ἐκείνων
γὰρ κατὰ τὸν ἀγῶνα πηδώντων ὑποσκάπτεται βόθρος ἑκάστου
τὸ ἅλμα δεικνύς. Might not the last words, especially taken in
conjunction with the ὑπὸ of the compound verb, mean, ‘ showing
where each was to jump to’ (or ‘where each expected to
jump to’), and thus agree with the explanation, also referred to
by Mr. Gardner, that the ἐσκαμμένα were marked before the
leaps were taken? This certainly seems implied in Pindar’s
lines themselves, and also by the order of the’ words in the
scholiast who says of Phayllus τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ σκαπτόντων
vy πόδας καὶ τούτους πηδώντων. Our jumpers indeed do not
seem to find such preparation needful on turf, though the
practice of placing a sloped hurdle in front of them is not
altogether unknown, and most fix their eyes on some spot
toward which they spring in preference to hurling themselves
quite vaguely into space. And when we consider what the
hardness of the ground under the heat of a midsummer in Elis

218 THE PENTATHLON.

must have been, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that
the ἐσκαμμένα were meant also to break the shock of alighting,
as is done now by laying down loose earth when the jumping is
on a cinder-path, as, eg., at Lilie Bridge. They would also
somewhat facilitate the measurement after the leap of the distance
covered. If such enormous distances as fifty feet were really
cleared (as to which I fear we shall never feel absolutely satisfied,
short of calling wp some oral witness from the dead), all these
three reasons would have additional force. I should incline,
therefore, to suppose that each competitor, or at any rate the
first who jumped, had a line drawn in front of him at a measured
distance which he thought to be the greatest he had any chance
of clearing, and the ground for a few feet within this broken up
so as to soften the shock of his descent.'

As to the order of the contests, Mr. Gardner, while recognising
the necessity of placing the leap first, and the footrace and
wrestling fourth and fifth, seems to hesitate somewhat whether
or not to place throwing the spear in the third place, and after
throwing the disk. The only reason for hesitation appears to be
that in paintings on certain vases, of which Mr. Gardner gives
a sample in Plate VIII. of the first volume of the journal,
the spear-thrower is placed between the leaper and the disk-
thrower.2 But this, as Mr. Gardner himself observes, may very
well be accounted for on artistic grounds (and indeed in the vase
selected the disk-thrower, not the leaper, is in the first place

1 Mr. J. B. Martin, President of the
London Athletic Club, who was present
when this paper was read at a meeting
of the Society for the Promotion of
Hellenic Studies, has since informed
me that 29 ft. 7in. were cleared by a
running jump at Chester in 1854, and
13 ft. 7in. by a standing jump at Man-
chester in 1875, 5 1b. weights (aArijpes)
being used in the first case and 23 lb.
weights in the second. He also makes
the somewhat bold suggestion that the
ἅλμα may have been the Hop Step and
Jump. He gives the best on record
* (without weights) as 49ft. 3in. (done
at Harwich in 1861). This would
approach the performance attributed
to Phayllus. 40 ft. 2in. were cleared

in this contest, without a run, in 1865.

Mr. Martin adds: ‘It has recently
become a practice to place a hand-
kerchief or piece of paper as a mark to
be jumped at.’

Mr. Gardner has now shown me a
vase in the British Museum on which
he has just discovered three marks,
plainly representing the ἐσκαμμένα, be-
hind a leaper in the act of alighting.
See eut opposite.

2 Mr. Gardner refers to this vase as
giving the attitudes of the athletes in
action. But if the leap was taken
standing, surely the leaper’s feet would
be together. And the disk-thrower
does not ‘ frame’ like Myron’s.

THE PENTATHLON 219

as the figures pass). But that the spear-throwing came third
is, I think, established not only by the passages cited from the
schohasts to Pindar and Sophocles, and from Eustathius, but
also by the passage in the seventh Nemean ode, which is surely
conclusive evidence if interpreted, as I should prefer, in a
sense rather different from that given to it by Dr. Pinder and
Mr. Gardner.

The latter says: ‘The present passage only mentions one
cause of stoppage (of the Pentathlon), the disqualification of a

competitor, not the more usual cause, the winning of three
events by one of the contending athletes.’ But surely it is this
‘more usual cause’ which is referred to in the latter part of the
passage. To disqualify a competitor for the whole Pentathlon
because of a single mistake in one of the five contests would
have been very unfair, and also if so severe a penalty had been
attached to the mistake, it would hardly ever have been com-

mitted—certainly not often enough to have been referred to as
of familiar occurrence, which I think the frequentative aorist

220 THE PENTATHLON.

may be taken to imply. And the whole tone of the passage
would lead one to expect reference rather to triumph than to
failure, to be applied perhaps literally to the athlete Sogenes,
who had very possibly won the three first events consecutively,
as well as metaphorically to Pindar, who indicates that having
said the right thing he has said enough. The words in the last
of these lines (αὔθωνι πρὶν ἁλίῳ yviov ἐμπεσεῖν) viewed in
connexion with the well-known Hellenic estimate of the sun’s
heat as one of the severest trials of the athlete at Olympia, seem
to point the same way, as well, perhaps, as the word ἐξέπεμψε,
to which the meaning of honourable escort or safe-conduct might
be attached. Had Pindar meant discomfiting dismissal, πέμπω
would hardly have been the word used.}

Of the perplexing question how the contest was regulated and
decided, Mr. Gardner’s solution—that it was decided by drawing
ties for a succession of single matches in the whole series of five
contests, the odd event deciding each match—seems indisput-
ably the best that can be offered. This, however, is not quite
the same as to say that it is entirely satisfactory ; and his article
hardly seems to recognise the full force of one objection. This
lies not merely in the length of time which would often be
occupied by a series of sets of contests of five different kinds
between successive competitors, but also in the extreme severity
of such a succession of efforts. Mr. Gardner himself, when
discussing a different point, observes, ‘ We cannot help wondering
what sort of a throw with a spear an athlete could make after a
bout or two of wrestling. But this is just what must have
happened, on Mr. Gardner's theory, almost inevitably at any
period in the history of the Olympic games, quite inevitably
(supposing more than two competitors to have entered), during
the 59 Olympiads between the institution of the Pentathlon,
and the assignment of more days than one to all the contests
together. We can only fall back on the argument of the great
powers of endurance which ten months’ training must have
produced (since it seems not to have overtrained) in men strong

1 To prevent misconception of my speech of my tongue as it were a
meaning I will add that I translate bronze-headed javelin, such as saveth
the passage (Vem. vii. 70-73) thus: from the wrestling the strong neck
“I swear that without overstepping sweatless yet, or ever the limbs be
the bound I have sent forth the swift plunged in the sun’s fire.’

THE PENTATHLON. 221

enough to stand it. If it were to be still maintained that the
first four events were contested by all competitors, the following
two theories (for cases where no competitor won three events)
would be at least less extremely improbable than those which
Mr. Gardner discusses and rejects; either that an average of
each man’s performance in the five was struck, and the prize
awarded accordingly, or that no prize at all was awarded. But
there are of course serious objections to both these theories, and
Mr. Gardner’s remains far the most probable, though not, I fear,
attaining absolute certainty.

It is hard to believe that any one should have doubted that to
be an ephedros was simply to have drawn a bye, but since such
doubt has indisputably been entertained, Mr. Gardner could not
well omit to notice the phenomenon.

ERNEST MYERS.

222 ; NOTES AND RECTIFICATIONS,

NOTES AND RECTIFICATIONS, PAMPHYLIAN
INSCRIPTION.

In a paper ‘On some Pamphylian Inscriptions,’ published in
the first volume of the Journal of Hellenic Studies, Ὁ. 242, my
principal object was to establish the value of the symbols Y and
ΝᾺ in those inscriptions. I was able to bring many analogies
for the value assigned to Y, viz. that of a palatal sibilant; but
I could find no analogy outside of the Pamphylian inscriptions
for the interpretation of ΝᾺ as being in some cases equivalent to
the English wu. At the time I did not notice that the Pam-
phylian A\WTO, explained as was suggested in my paper,
afforded an exact parallel to a Naxian inscription, the imterpre-
tation given of which by Bentley was doubted by Kirchhoff,
Griech. Alph. p. 73, solely because it was so singular. In the
Naxian inscription the form [T]O AFYTO is given by Bentley
as equivalent in meaning and scansion to the Attic ταὐτοῦ; in
other words ἀβυτοῦ is a dissyllable. The Pamphylian form
exactly confirms this interpretation; as I had argued that
AWTO must be rendered by the English letters awuto and
that it was a dissyllable. The two forms, therefore, each in
itself somewhat singular and open to suspicion, when taken
together make the interpretation quite certain.}

The rest of the paper alluded to was devoted to the long
inscription from Sillyon. Several of the interpretations pro-
posed for difficult words were only desperate remedies; and
especially the explanation of the first line, taking the adjective
ἱερός in a sense not only unexampled but quite contrary to

! The foregoing note was sent to the Professor Jebb in the same journal,

Editor to be appended to the paper inp. 59, has referred to the Naxian in-
Vol. I. but reached him too late. scription.

PAMPHYLIAN INSCRIPTION. 223

analogy, cannot possibly be maintained. Its only justification
was that the inscription seemed to begin with the first line of
the published copy: but it is quite possible, and I thmk much
more probable, that the inscription is continued on this stone,
and that the beginning must be sought either on another stone
or on another face of the same stone. I had hoped that an
actual examination of the stone might reveal more; but a
letter from Colonel Wilson has destroyed that hope. In
January Colonel Wilson, during a brief visit to Assarkeui, took
the trouble to prove on the stone the reading of several lines,
the meaning of which was specially dark. His examination
confirmed the accuracy of Hirschfeld’s transcript in most cases,
but occasionally he gives important corrections. In line 20 oc-
curs the form ZENOZAI. Kirchhoff’s emendation, ZENOAAI
i.e. γένωνται, Was given in my paper, and Colonel Wilson in-
forms me that the stone has A not Z. In line 13, I had to
express doubt as to the reading AZ\TY, and I was glad to
find that Colonel Wilson gives the reading AZ\WPY. This of
itself confirms the proposed interpretation of ΝᾺ: it is hardly
necessary to remark that at the beginning of a word a Νὰ or a F
before P is exactly what one might expect; though I cannot
guess a word that would suit the place. In line 6 Colonel
Wilson marks the loss of a letter ΣΑΒΑ: ΤΊ. In line 3 he puts
a mark of interrogation at the B n ZBAYW. In hne 2 he
reads JA for \A.

The following extract from Colonel Wilson’s letter is also of
interest. ‘The inscription is on the right jamb of the entrance
to a building which was either converted into a church or
built as one; I rather think the former, but the brushwood
is thick, and I had no time to make a proper examination. The
jamb is formed of one stone which appeared to me to be in situ
and not to have been taken from an older building. The square
shown at the foot of your lithograph is a hole cut in the face of
the jamb to receive a beam for roughly closing the entrance.
The hole has been cut long after the building ceased to be a
church. The inscription ran right across the face of the jamb,
but on the outer side the surface has scaled off and many of the
letters are lost. Some of the letters have disappeared since the
copy from which the lithograph is taken was made. The
inscription consisted of thirty-six lines, and the letters are }”

224 NOTES AND RECTIFICATIONS.

high. The letters are well cut, but the stone is not good.
The commencement of the lines is given as a rule in the
lithograph. There are several Hellenic remains at Assarkeui,
and it looks a good site for digging.’

Until more Pamphylian inscriptions have been found at.
Assarkeui or elsewhere, I fear this one will defy all attempt
to translate it. From its situation, however, it is perhaps safe
to conclude that it was a religious document, describing the
order of rites in the worship of Apollo Pythios; it is not im-
probable that the stone was one of the doorposts in a building
consecrated to the god, and that the inscription began on the
other jamb.

W. M. Ramsay.

CORRIGENDA : INSCRIPTIONS ON TWO VASES. 225

CORRIGENDA: INSCRIPTIONS ON TWO VASES.

A REMARKABLE instance of the injury that may be done by
the so-called restoration of broken or marred works of art is
afforded in the case of two Greek vases in the British Museum
which have lately been cleaned. It is obvious that the chances
are very much against the probability of a vase arriving in an
ewtire state at its final place of deposit in a museum or
collection ; and that it is to the advantage of an unscrupulous
dealer to hide, as far as possible, all traces of fracture or restora-
tion: unfortunately, therefore, it is too commonly the case that
a vase while undergoing repairs is treated with a wash of
modern paint which, while it hides the fractures, dulls the
glaze and mars the fresh metallic gleam, the peculiar charm of
Greek pottery: frequently also the imagination of the modern
artist is drawn upon in supplying missing details of the design,
with the effect, at any rate, of misleading the student; and
sometimes, as in the case of both the vases to which I refer,
of completely obliterating important inscriptions. The most
mischievous error of all is when a part of one vase is used to
supply a missing portion of another : a vase which I have lately
seen taken to pieces, was found to be made up trom fragments
of no less than three different vases. Restoration of this kind
necessarily involves a certain amount of hacking the materials
into shape, whereby portions of the original design are
irretrievably ruined.

Some of the vases of the British Museum have been lately
cleaned, by Mr. Ready, with excellent results; I have selected
the two which show the most important alterations.

1. A kylix from Vulci in the finest style, engraved, Monuments
Ined. dell, Inst. vol. v. pl. xlix., published by Braun in the Annali,
1853, pp. 103-113: Catalogue of Vases in British Museum,
No. 811*. It represents a banquet of the gods, probably at
the marriage festivities of Peleus and Thetis. Five gods are
there, each with his special lady at the foot of his couch,
while Komos and Ganymede wait on their respective lords.

H. S.— VOL. I. Q

226 CORRIGENDA : INSCRIPTIONS ON TWO VASES.

Besides several unimportant details, the following changes are
worthy of notice :—

In the interior scene, instead of the fragment EPPE®A we
have the whole name @EPPE®ATTA, a form of the name
of Persephone which we meet elsewhere (see for similar
forms Ar. Thesm. 287, Ran. 671, &e., and Forster, Der Rawb
der Persephone, p. 278).

On the exterior, the names APIAANE, KQMOY now
appear complete, and that of AM®ITPITH has regained
its seven missing letters; [ΓΑἸΝΥΜΕΔΕ recovers an N
and Y, the first two letters being still wanting. The name
of Dionysos terminates in an ordinary 9, instead of the 9
which is assigned to it in the Monumenti. The top of Zeus’
sceptre, and the face of Komos as given there, are both the
work of the restorer. On the table of Plouton a flower or
fruit is now visible.

2. A stamnos from Chiusi, representing Silenos, captured in
the rose gardens, led bound into the presence of Midas: this is
published by Emil Braun in the Annali of the Roman Institute
for 1844, pp. 200-213, and engraved ibid., Tav. @ Agg. H. This
engraving shows no trace whatever of an inscription, neither
does Dr. Braun mention any; there were however visible
before cleaning, the names of MIAAY and ZIAENOZ, both
placed above the head of Silenos. Since the vase was freed of
its modern coating, the following inscriptions have appeared:
above the head of Midas his own name MIAAZ: above the
head of the female attendant who stands behind him, EYPSITA,
Eur[o]pa? and above the head of the servant who holds the
eord by which Silenos is bound, the fragment SX\AAOZ: the
eord itself is also now visible.

Whether this last inscription is part of the name of the
figure over whom it is placed, or whether it is merely part
of the word ΚΑΛΟΣ, seems doubtful; if the latter is the case,
we have some sort of explanation for the peculiar repetition of
the name Midas. The name standing over that of Silenos would
then simply form part of a sentence of a form common enough
on vases: Μίδας καλός, which might refer either to the king
himself or to some existing personage whom the inscriber had
in view. CECIL SMITH.

THE RAM IN AEGINETAN SCULPTURE, japat

THE RAM IN AEGINETAN SCULPTURE.

PAUSANIAS (x. 17, 6) seeks to convey a definite notion of the
rams in Sardinia by saying that they had the form which an
Aeginetan sculptor would give a wild ram, except for a shaggi-
ness on the breast which was too thick for Aeginetan art. The
spareness of form implied here, and still more distinctly in the
extraordinary swiftness which he ascribes to these rams, seems
to agree very well with what remains of the sculpture of Aegina;
and in calling attention to this circumstance (Grech: Sculpture,
p. 187) I supposed that Pausanias had in his mind only the
general characteristic of the Aegina school, to which he refers on
other occasions. But it occurs to me now that he may have
been thinking specially of Onatas and the statue of Hermes
Kriophoros, which he had seen at Olympia and described (v. 27, 8).
Onatas receives great praise from Pausanias (v. 25, 7), and no
doubt was to him a representative of the school of Aegina.

A. 5. Murray.

228 WHERE WAS DODONA ?

WHERE WAS DODONA ?

To the Editor of the Journal of Hellenic Studies.

RISEHOLME, LINCOLN,
May 9th, 1881.

Srr,—The article in your Journal by Mr. Roberts ‘On the
Oracle Inscriptions discovered at Dodona’ (recently published
at Paris in the magnificent work of Constantin Carapanos,
entitled Dodone et ses ruines), has been read by me with great
gratification, and has awakened in my mind some delightful
reminiscences. May I be permitted to communicate them ?

Fifty years ago, when at Naples, and preparing for a journey
to Greece, I had the pleasure of friendly intercourse with Sir
William Gell, who at that time had done more than any one in
Europe for the elucidation of the geography and topography of
Greece, except perhaps Mr. Dodwell and Colonel Leake. In
one of our conversations at that time Sir William Gell said to
me, ‘One of the most interesting and difficult questions in
Greek geography is, ““ Where was Dodona?” When you go to
Greece, mind and try to find it out.’

Colonel Leake, in his admirable work on Northern Greece,
published in 1835 (vol. iv. pp. 168-200, where is a long essay
on the subject), writes in despair upon it as follows: ‘ Un-
fortunately nothing more than an opinion can be pronounced
upon it. Dodona is now the only Greek city of any celebrity
the situation of which is not exactly known.’ Colonel Leake
thought that Dodona might have been at Kastritza, at the
southern end of the lake of Jannina, and that its temple might
have been in the fortress of Jannina itself.

That a place so distinguished in ancient history for its famous

WHERE WAS DODONA ? 229

oracle should have been utterly lost was marvellous. And in
visiting Greece in 1832 I endeavoured to do what I could to
solve the problem and unravel the mystery.

The following was the result. When at Jannina in 1832 I
made an excursion on September 12th in a south-westerly
direction, and visited some ruins at about seven miles’ distance
from that town, at a place called Dramisus. The account of
my researches on that occasion was published by me not long
afterwards in my work on Greece (Greece, pictorial, descriptive,
and historical) long since out of print ; and as it can hardly be
known to your readers, I venture to make an extract from it
on this question.

You will see that reasons are there given for a prophecy that
Dodona would be found at Dramisus. You may guess my
delight at hearing that this prediction has now been fully
verified by the discovery of the ancient inscriptions mentioned
in your article, which show beyond all doubt that the ruins at
Dramisus are the remains of DODONA.

Let me now subjoin the description as it stands in my work
on Greece, printed in 1839 (p. 247, first edition published by
Mr. Orr, and p. 324 in later editions published by Mr. Murray).

I am, sir,
Yours faithfully,
C. LINCOLN.

ON THE SITE OF DODONA.

To ascertain the site of Dopona would seem now to require a response from
the oracle itself. The former dwelling of the spirit which once guided half the
world is lost. For many generations kings, generals, and statesmen came from
the extreme coasts of Greece, from all the countries stretching between Amphi-
polis on the east, and Apollonia on the west, and from the shores of Asia and
Italy, to consult the oracle; but now none can point to its place. Still even the
uncertainty of its site is not without interest, and we do not believe that the
search for it is hopeless. There must be something peculiar and distinct in the .
remains of so remarkable a place. The ruins of a large capital are easily dis-
tinguished from those of a dependent city ; the ruins of a city, again, from those
of a mere fortress; but the ruins of an oracular city will have something very
different from both.

What has perplexed the investigation of this question is, as it appears to us,
not the paucity of identifying data, but their multitude and variety. There
are so many and conflicting conditions to be satisfied that it is impossible to
satisfy them all. A lake ; a high mountain; a hundred springs; a miraculous
fountain which extinguishes lights and then rekindles them ; a forest of oaks and

230 WHERE WAS DODONA ?

beeches ; a wide plain of excellent pasturage ; these characteristics are all put
tugether as in the hue-and-cry description of a military deserter; these ave the
attributes and features by which Dodona is first to be recognised, and then
brought -back to the post which it has deserted in the maps of Greece.

But has not this varied description been sketched without due discrimination ?
Regarding Dodona asa city only and not as a country, we believe that it was
the most remarkable in this district ; indeed it was the only one of any con-
sideration within a circuit of many miles. Its importance also, from its sacred
character, is not to be neglected. Now, supposing a traveller in this part of
Greece, but not in the dmimediate neighbourhood of the oracle itself, to have met
with a phosphoric fountain, for instance, which he found to extinguish and then
to ignite any inflammable substance, if he were asked on his return home, ‘ Where
this spring was to be found ?’ what answer would he have made but this—‘ He
had seen it near Dodona,.’ And thus a cluster of wonders would soon group
themselves about that place, as the best and almost the only point for their
adhesion and support; and so these phenomena, though really detached, but
connected with it by association, would soon be assumed to be the features of the
oracle itself. ‘

But Dodona was not a city merely : it was, we believe, a country also. Its
dimensions may be presumed to have been of sutlicient extent to comprise within
their general range all those characteristic features which are pow crowded into
the immediate neighbourhood, and almost into the sacred precincts of the
oracular shrine. .

It has been alleged, that because some authors place Dodona in Molossia and
others in Thesprotia, it must therefore have been upon the borders of both. But
this inference must be received with certain limitations. In earlier times Dodona
was in Thesprotia; in later ages it was in Molossia ; simply because the greater
part of Thesprotia itself became Molossian by the southward encroachments of
the latter power, which, in the Peloponnesian war, reached nearly to the shores
of the Ambracian Gulf.

Again, in that important datum for determining the position of Dodona, namely,
its distance of four days’ journey from Buthrotum, at the mouth of the modern
Delvino, and of two from Ambracia, the present Arta, it must be remembered
that the latter journey would be with, and the former against, the grain of the
hard mountain ranges which stretch from north to south between the Pindus and
the Ionian Sea.

These considerations are suggested by the sight of an ancient city, whose ruins
have deservedly attracted much attention. In our way towards them, we proceed
from Jannina in a south-westerly direction, and in an hour’s time from that place
pass by the village of Grapsista on our left, then turn to the right up a mountain
pass, whence we descend, having a church called Ecclesia Bodista on the left,
into an extensive plain, which lies below the eastern slopes of Mount Olitza, The
ruins, which are situated in the middle of this plain, are about eleven miles to
the south-west of Jannina. They are known by the name of the Kastro, or ancient
citadel, of Dramisus.

The first thing which strikes the spectator in looking at these remains, is their
situation. They stand in a plain. The selection of such a spot shows a re-
markable confidence in the inherent resources of the city ; for if there is one
particular attribute of an ordinary Hellenic town, it is this—that its citadel is
placed upon a hill. A Greek city was always full of suspicions ; the exception
furnished by the example of Nicopolis, a Roman Greek city, which is placed in

WHERE WAS DODONA ? 231

the middle of the plain, is an argument in favour of this general rule. These
ruins, which we are now viewing,‘are exclusively Greek, and ina similar situation;
and that, too, in the heart of one of the most mountainous districts of Greece.
There was no want of localities admirably suited for the erection of a fortress
upon them, in a country where there are pointed hills shooting up their
heads on every side, vying, as it were, with one another to be encircled with
the mural crown of an Hellenic city. The choice, therefore, of a level site in
such a region as this, was, we conceive, made deliberately, and for some especial
reason,

This peculiarity is made more remarkable by the smallness of the city itself.
The strength of its population could never have compensated for the weakness of
its position. The whole circuit of the walls of its upper and lower divisions does
not amount to two English miles. The consideration of these two facts,
the lowness of the situation and the small extent of the city, seem conclusive
objections against the opinion which has ascribed these ruins to Passaron, the
metropolitan seat of the house of Pyrrhus. But though the place which we are
now viewing could have possessed no military power, still, in a social respect, it
seems to have been of considerable importance. Attached to the acropolis, on the
south-east, is the shell of a magnificent theatre, one of the largest now existing in
Greece. It is scooped in the declivity of the hill, with a southern aspect. Now
the existence of a theatre at all, especially in this district, is a very singular
circumstance ; but the existence of so grand a theatre in so insignificant a place
is without a parallel in the whole of Greece.

Proceeding eastward from the theatre, we observe another object, very unusual
in the remains of Epirot cities. On the north of the theatre, between it and the
gate of the lower city, are vestiges of two temples ; of the most distant of the two,
fourteen columns, or at least the fragments of them, are still standing. There
are not, we believe, fourteen other columns remaining together in the whole of
Epirus.

Considering these circumstances, and the inferences to be deduced from them,
we feel disposed to inquire whether, when contemplating these ruins, we are
not treading the soil once hallowed by the presence of Dodona? Does not this
supposition explain the peculiarities above noticed? The oracular city needed no
extrinsic defence of a strong natural position; it was protected by its own
sanctity. Being situated in a plain, it was easy of access for the inquirers who
came to it from every side. Hence, too, we may account for the disproportion
between the city and the buildings with which it was adorned. The theatre was
not designed for the entertainment of citizens only ; it served as an attraction for
strangers, and provided gratification for those who were brought there by the
celebrity of the oracle. Whether the temples of which we have spoken were
connected with the worship of the Dodonaean Jupiter, and whether they were
contained in a Temenos, or sacred enclosure, in which the theatre probably stood,
as was the case with that at Epidaurus, will be better determined by those who
may be enabled to make excavations among the ruins.

For the reasons adduced above, it is not wonderful that we do not discover here
all the natural phenomena usually associated with Dodona. In order to reconcile
the modern picture with the ancient original, the other features of Dodona must
be collected by the topographer from various places in the neighbourhood, as the
limbs of his son, scattered about the country, were by Aeetes. We may be
compelled to go eight miles to Jannina for the Dodonaean lake ; its phosphoric
spring may perhaps be found near the sulphuric mines worked by Ali Pasha, near

232 WHERE WAS DODONA ἢ

Djerovini ; the mountain of Tomarus will be represented by Olitzka, with its
hundred sources in its glens, and this fertile plain at its roots.

Another vestige of the oracle deserves notice, There are records of a Bishop of
Dodona existing in the fifth century, and the name which the place bears in the
Imperial documents of that period, is Bonditza. This appellatioh is perhaps to
be recognized in that of the small church of Bodista, which we passed, as above
noticed, at a short distance from this spot. It seems worth an inquiry whether
the same name, in an abbreviated form, is not preserved in the τ τ το. Xero
Boutza, a village a little to the north west of these ruins,

This conjecture, made in 1832, has now been verified
by the discovery of the ancient inscriptions found among the
ruins here described.

©. 1.

BYZANTINE SATIRE.

It must sometimes have occurred to readers of Byzantine
literature, after they have perused a number of the occasionally
valuable, but almost always dreary, works of which it is composed
—lifeless chronicles, polemical and other theology, inflated
panegyrics, and grammatical treatises—to ask the question,
whether this was really all; whether a quick-witted and intelligent
people, such as we know the inhabitants of Constantinople at
certain periods to have been, were contented to subsist entirely
on such dry mental food. No doubt, religious controversy often
ran high, and this, when it fills men’s thoughts, is apt to supply
the place of intellectual interests; but such discussions did not
last for ever, and could not have occupied the minds of the whole
of the educated population. A certain source of relief was
provided in the numerous poems, songs, and romances in the
popular language—some of native growth and dealing with
subjects of local or traditional interest, some imitated from the —
romances of Western Europe—which have been brought to light
by the industry of such men as MM. Sathas and Legrand at
Paris, Prof. Lambros of Athens, and the late Dr. W. Wagner
of Hamburg. But even these do not furnish that element of
liveliness, which we should expect to manifest itself in some
shape or other in a great centre of activity.

Now the form of literature which is most liable to be generated
by circumstances such as these is satire. Repression, whether
in the character of political despotism or of literary mannerism,

H. S.—VOL. I. R

234 BYZANTINE SATIRE.

and both these existed in the Byzantine Empire—has the
effect of forcing genius into side channels, and criticism, when it
cannot be exercised openly, finds for itself direct methods of
expression, which are usually characterised by a tone of bitter-
ness. ΤῸ some extent we see these influences at work at Rome
in the early period of the empire; and in the great cities of the
East, where popular feeling was less under control, the satirical
spirit manifests itself on various occasions ; as when the Emperor
Julian at Antioch became the subject of libellous songs, to which
he replied by the counterblast of the J/isopogon. That the same
thing prevailed at Constantinople is shown by a passage of Anna
Comnena, where she says, speaking of a conspiracy among the
courtiers against ber father, Alexius Comnenus, that they wrote
a number of scurrilous pamphlets, and flung them into the
emperor’s tent.) The word φάμουσα (i.e. famosi libelli), which
Anna uses here, proves by its Latin origin that such compositions
were no new thing, since it must have descended from the early
period of the Eastern empire, when the Latin language was in
vocue. But, beyond this, we have ample evidence of a regular
satirical literature having existed there. Some of these By-
zantine satires, which have no very distinctive marks to betray
the lateness of their date, have been printed along with Lucian’s
works, but the majority have remained in manuscript; and
Hase, who first drew attention to this subject, says there are
about a dozen such in the National Library at Paris alone.
Two of these last have now been published, and as they are
both interesting in themselves and characteristic specimens of
the literature to which they belong, it is the object of the
following paper to give some account of them.

The publication of the first of these, which is entitled
Timarion’s Sufferings (Τιμαρίων, ἢ περὶ τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτὸν
παθημάτων), may be said to be due to a fortunate accident.
The manuscript in which it is preserved belongs to the Vatican
library, and when the treasures of that collection were tem-
porarily in Paris in the early part of this century, having been
transferred thither by the Emperor Napoleon I., M. Hase was
employed to make a catalogue of the Greek manuscripts therein
contained. Finding that this satire was a work of merit, he
printed it entire in 1813, in the Notices et Extraits des Manu-

1 Anna Comnena, Alevias, Book xiii. chap. i. p. 179, edit. Bonn.

BYZANTINE SATIRE. 235

serits (Vol. ix. Pt. 2, pp. 125 foll.), together with a Latin
translation, illustrative notes, and a long and learned preface,
in which he discusses the origin and character of this class of
writings. At the same time he drew attention to a similar
satire of some importance, that of the Sojourn of Mazaris in
Hades (Επιδημία Μάζαρι ἐν Gov), as existing in manuscript in
the Paris library, and of this he gave an analysis, accompanied
by historical and other comments, though he did not publish it.
Eighteen years later it was printed by Boissonade in the third
volume of his Anecdota Graeca. Both these works were sub-
sequently republished in 1860 from the texts of Hase and
Boissonade, with a German translation by Dr. Ellissen of
Gottingen, in the fourth volume of his Analekten der mittel- und
neugriechischen Literatur, and the notes which that accomplished
student of Byzantine history and literature has added are of the
utmost value. It 15 from these authorities that my knowledge
of the subject is for the most part derived.

The dates of these compositions can be approximately
determined by internal evidence. That of ‘Timarion’ is some
time in the first half of the twelfth century, for that character
—and there can be little doubt that by Timarion the anonymous
writer meant himself—speaks of Theodore of Smyrna as having
been his teacher, and that rhetorician flourished in the reign of
Alexius Comnenus (1081-1118); while on the other hand the
dignitary for whom he expresses the highest admiration in this
piece, and who was probably his patron, Michael Palaeologus,
occupied important positions under John Comnenus (1118-1143)
and Manuel (1143-1180). This was a period of considerable
literary activity, for it produced, among others, the historians
Zonaras and Cinnamus, the grammarian Tzetzes, and the
commentator Eustathius. The author appears, from what he
says of Timarion, to have been a native of Cappadocia, and by
profession a philosopher, that is, probably, some kind of student
and teacher. On the other hand, ‘ Mazaris’ was composed
nearly three centuries later, during the latter half of the long
reign of Manuel Palaeologus II. (1391-1425), for reference is
made in it to the visit of that emperor to western Europe with
the object of obtaining aid against the Turks, from which he
returned in 1402, as an event of recent occurrence, and the
defeat of Sultan Bajazet by Timour at Angora, which happened

R 2

236 BYZANTINE SATIRE.

in the same year, is also alluded to. The author of this satire
must have been an inhabitant of Constantinople from his intimate
acquaintance with the gossip and scandal of the court, and if he
speaks in his own name, he would seem to have been a courtier
himself. The severity with which he handles the monks, proves
that he was not an ecclesiastic. It will be seen that the two
periods to which these compositions refer were times of con-
siderable interest ; for the former was the era of the Crusades,
when the Byzantine empire was still vigorous, while the latter
saw that empire in the last stage of decrepitude, though struggling
against its impending fate.

The subject of both pieces is the same, a narrative of a visit
to the infernal regions. From Homer's time onward this idea,
exciting as it is to the imagination, had been a favourite one in
Greek literature, and the descents of Heracles, Orpheus, Theseus,
and Ulysses provided the material for fanciful speculation and
for poetic treatment. As long as the belief in the old gods
remained, a certain feeling of awe clung to the subject, though
even apart from scepticism it was easily turned into ridicule, as
we see from the way in which it is handled in the Frogs of
Aristophanes. But by the Byzantine writers it was employed as
a means of expressing an opinion, favourable or unfavourable as
the case might be, of persons either still living or lately dead,
and of introducing allusions and anecdotes which might amuse
the reading public. In Timarion also, and probably in Mazaris,
the person is not supposed to descend alive into Hades, as is the
case with Dante and with the heroes of Greek romance, but the
soul is for the time separated from the body, and is only reunited
to it by some supernatural means. But though these two
compositions correspond to one another in these respects, in most
points there is a strong contrast between them. In the first
place, their form is somewhat different, for while Timarion is a
dialogue, Mazaris is rather a narrative, for a supposed audience
is addressed as ὦ παρόντες ; but this difference exists in appear-
ance rather than in reality, for in the former the interlocutor is
only introduced to ask leading questions so as to facilitate the
telling of the story ; while on the other hand the narrative of
Mazaris is to a great extent taken up with the report of conver-
sations. A much more marked contrast is found in their
contents and the mode of handling the subject. For whereas

BYZANTINE SATIRE, 237

in Timarion the primary object is to amuse, so that the story is
worked out in considerable detail, and the satire is kept in the
background, and is gentle and good-humoured in its criticisms;
in Mazaris the occurrences that are mentioned are few, and the
dialogue is the more prominent feature; and the satirical element
prevails throughout, usually taking the form of malevolent
detraction, mixed with violent and scurrilous invective.

The classical author whose compositions served as a model to
these mediaeval satirists was uucian. This clever writer, the
Swift or Voltaire of the second century of our era, exercised
great influence over the Byzantines, and was both read and
imitated by them. His popularity at any period is not difficult
to account for, owing to the eminent readableness of his works; for
his style is clear and easy, the subjects that he treats of are very
numerous, his sketches of men and manners are singularly
graphic, the form of his compositions is varied, being sometimes
dialogue and at others narrative, and his satire is a mixture of
light wit and rasping sarcasm, In this way he never fails to
amuse. But inthe Eastern empire there were additional causes
for his popularity. Besides the tendency to satirical writing
which we have noticed as being prevalent under that dominion,
and which naturally suggested the study of so great a master of
that art, religious feeling also contributed to the same result.
For some of the vices that Lucian attacks, such as pride, avarice
and hypocrisy, are amongst the things with which religion is
constantly at war; and at the same time Christian teachers
were amused at his ridicule of the heathen gods and ancient
systems of philosophy, which were their own antagonists, while
they failed to perceive that this weapon might be turned, as he
had occasionally turned it, against themselves; in fact, that
scepticism such as his struck at the root of all religion and all
absolute truth. Accordingly, they were tempted to imitate
him, and some of them in different centuries succeeded so far
that their compositions were for a time mistaken for his. But
his wit was his own, and could not be reproduced; what they
inherited was his form and method, which served as a vehicle
for satires on the society, and occasionally on the events and
characters, of their own times.

The satires of Lucian which touch on the subject of the future
state are—

238 BYZANTINE SATIRE.

(1) The Dialoge Mortuorum: these thirty short pieces are
mainly devoted to ridiculing the follies and superstitions of
mankind, by means of imaginary conversations between mytho-
logical or historical personages in the lower world ; indirectly
also they are intended to expose the inconsistencies in men’s
ideas about a life after death.

(2) The Cataplus sive Tyrannus: this is also a dialogue, and
describes a multitude of souls crossing in Charon’s boat, which
Megapenthes, the rich tyrant, wishes to avoid doing, in order
that he may enjoy the pleasures of life a little longer ; with his
unwillingness is contrasted the eagerness of a cobbler, Micyllus,
to make the passage, and when they are brought before Rhada-
manthys for trial, they are appointed to happiness and suffering
inversely to what they had experienced in the world above. It
is a sort of heathen version of Dives and Lazarus.

(3) The De Luctw: in this satire Lucian ridicules the funeral
customs of various peoples, and those of the Greeks in particular,
and introduces a youth lately dead as returning to life in order
to reproach his parents for insulting him by this mockery, when
he was so much better off than they were. Short though it is,
it contains the most detailed account that the satirist has given
of the beliefs on the subject of death which he attributes to his
countrymen.

(4) The second book of the Vera Historia. This work, which
is a romance composed of all sorts of extravagances and impossi-
bilities—a narrative which might be compared to Sindbad the
Sailor, or Gulliver’s Travels, or one of Jules Verne’s Tales—in
one part describes a visit to the Islands of the Blessed, where
the city they inhabit bears in many points a strange resemblance
to the New Jerusalem of the book of Revelation, though the
life described shows Lucian at his worst. Afterwards the
adventurers reach another island, which contains the place of
punishment.

The state of the dead which the satirist describes is the
Homeric Inferno, amplified by some further details, and by the
addition of some personages, like Charon, who belong to the
later mythology. Lucian, in fact, in the treatise De Luctu,
himself attributes the views of the Greeks on this subject to
Homer and Hesiod as their authors.!. The conception of Hades

1 De Luctu, ii.

BYZANTINE SATIRE. 239

is that of a dark region underground, surrounded by great rivers,
ef which pieces of water the Acherusian lake is the largest,
and cannot be crossed without the ferryman. At the descent of
the pit dwell Aeacus and Cerberus, and within, the asphodel
meadow is entered, in which is the water of Lethe. From this,
according to the judgment of Minos and Rhadamanthys, the
good are sent to the Elysian plain, the bad to the place of
torment, while the large class of those intermediate between the
two continue to wander in the meadow, and are fed by the
libations and other offerings made on their tombs, so that those
who receive none of these starve. This conception is modified
by Lucian in different parts of his writings, according, it would
seem, as suited the purpose of his satire at the time. The idea
of punishment has generally much greater stress laid upon it
than that of reward; in one place the Seven Wise Men alone are
spoken of as free from sorrow,? and in another the inhabitants of
Hades are said to 116 all alike beneath the same darkness, in no
wise differing the one from the other.”

The dialogue, however, which is most closely imitated in
Timarion and Mazaris, is the Vecyomanteia, and this is probably
the work not of Lucian himself, but of an early imitator. In
this, Philonides, an acquaintance of the cynic Menippus, who is
a favourite character with Lucian, meets that philosopher
wearing a broad-brimmed hat and a lion’s skin, and carrying
a lyre, which objects prove to be emblems of a pilgrimage to the
infernal regions, assumed by him in imitation of Ulysses, Heracles
and Orpheus. To his friend’s salutation and inquiries concerning
his absence he replies in the first words of the Hecuba—

ἥκω νεκρῶν κευθμῶνα Kal σκότου πύλας
Ki \ 7/2 ao ὶ Μ θ ον Ass
iTo@v, ἵν᾿ addons χωρὶς ᾧκισται θεῶν

and, when further interrogated, he continues to reply by
quotations from Euripides and Homer, in whose company he
says he has lately been, so that their verses come unbidden to
his lips. On the same principle, apparently, he swears by
Cerberus. He in turn inquires about those whom he had left
above ground, and when he is told that they are pursuing their
usual occupations of plunder, perjury and usury, he compas-
sionates them because of the decree that had lately been passed

1 Dialoyi Mortuorwin, xx. 4. Jal bidh πν 9.

240 BYZANTINE SATIRE.

in Hades concerning rich men. What this was, he is at first
unwilling to divulge, lest he should render himself hable to
indictment for impiety in the court of Rhadamanthys, but
ultimately he agrees to do so on promise of silence. First,
however, Philonides requests that he should explain his reasons
for visiting the lower regions, and relate who acted as his guide,
and what he saw and heard. His reason, he replies, was to
obtain relief from scepticism, since he had failed to meet with
any satisfaction in this matter in the world above. He then
describes his early difficulties—how in his youth he had learnt
to believe in the history of the gods and goddesses with all their
crimes and misdemeanours ; and when at a later period he found
these things to be strictly forbidden by the laws, he was in
perplexity how to reconcile religion and morality. Thereupon
he betook himself to philosophy, but in doing so perceived that
he had got from the frying-pan (or, as the Greek proverb has it,
from the smoke) into the fire, because each school maintained
different tenets, and, what was worse, they brought forward from
their different points of view such irrefragable arguments to
prove directly contrary propositions that he was bewildered.
Persons who have seen the inhabitants of south-eastern Europe
at the present day express dissent by throwing back the head, as
the Greeks and Romans used to do, instead of shaking it, as
we do, will appreciate his description of his state of mind at this
time ; for he says that he was in the condition of a drowsy mani,
one minute nodding his head forward (ἐπινεύων), and the next
throwing it back again (ἀνανεύων). Besides this, he found the
lives of the philosophers quite at variance with their tenets.
Disappointed here, he bethought him of applying to the
Chaldaean magi, who were said to be able by means of
incantations to conduct living persons into Hades and back
again, in order that he might communicate with the shade of
Teiresias, and learn from him what was the best and most
reasonable life to lead. One of these, called Mithrobarzanes,
dresses him up with the emblems already mentioned, in order
that he might be mistaken for one of the personages who had
already made the journey, and then conducting him to a spot
near the Euphrates, causes the ground to open and form a chasm
by which they enter. After passing the usual objects of the
Greek Inferno, they come to the place where Minos was judging

BYZANTINE SATIRE. 241

the souls, witness being borne against them in an ingenious
manner by the shadows they had cast during their lifetime.
This gives an opportunity for drawing the contrast, which is so
familiar in Lucian, between the greatness of princes in the world
above and their contemptible position after death. They then
arrive at the place of punishment, where terrible tortures are
being inflicted, and finally reach the Acherusian plain, where
the rest of the dead are assembled, all ghastly, and hardly
distinguishable from one another; the moral being that life is
an empty pageant, and the gifts on which men pride themselves
an unreality. At last Philonides recalls him to the decree which
he had mentioned concerning rich men; this was to the effect
that after death their bodies should be punished like those of
other criminals, but their souls should be sent up to earth again,
to inhabit the bodies of asses, and to be driven by the poor.
This was proposed by Kpaviwy Σκελετίωνος Νεκυσιεὺς, φυλῆς
᾿Αλιβαντίδος, and was voted in the assembly of the dead.
After this Menippus meets Teiresias, and asks him the question
for the sake of which he had descended; and receives the
characteristic answer, that the best rule of conduct is to enjoy
oneself, to cultivate a jesting spirit, and not to be anxious or
earnest about anything. Menippus returns to the upper world
by the cave of Trophonius.

Having thus noticed the conditions under which the Byzantine
satires were produced, let us turn to the first of those which we
propose to examine, viz.—

TIMARION’S SUFFERINGS.

The age of the Comneni, to which the story of these belongs,
was a period at once of decline and of revival to the Byzantine
empire. From the beginning of the eighth century, when Leo
the Isaurian by his reforms infused new life into the declining
state, until the commencement of the eleventh century, that
power was the strongest in Europe; and no other monarchical
government in history can show so long a succession of able
administrators as 1s found, first in the line of the Iconoclast
emperors, and afterwards in the Macedonian: dynasty. Its
greatness in war is shown by its having beaten back and
ultimately outlived the power of the Saracens, who would

242 BYZANTINE SATIRE.

otherwise have overrun the whole of Europe ; and on the other
side by its having kept at bay for three hundred years, and at
last destroyed, the great Bulgarian monarchy. Its material
prosperity appears in the immense weight of taxation it was
able to endure, and was in great measure the result of the
commerce of the mercantile marine, which had in its hands the
whole of the carrying trade between Asia and Western Europe.
And in respect of civilization its high position is shown by the
attention paid to education, by the regular administration of
justice, and especially by the steady maintenance of the legal
standard of the comage. But in the eleventh century symptoms
of decline appeared, and developed themselves with great rapidity.
This was owing partly to political, and partly to social causes.
During the three previous centuries the government had tended
to become more and more a pure despotism, and the evils arising
from the complete centralization of the system were only kept in
check by the admirable organization of the public service, officials
being regularly trained to conduct the various departments of
the state; but now this system was broken down in consequence
of these offices being entrusted to eunuchs of the imperial
household, the object being to diminish the chance of rebellion
by placing the government in the hands of men who could not
found a dynasty. At the same time the accumulation of
property in the hands of a few great landholders, whose farms
were cultivated by serfs or slaves, almost extirpated the middle
class of small farmers, and thus diminished the number of those
who were willing to defend their liberties against invaders. A
single false step revealed the weakness that had thus been
introduced into the whole body politic. At the time when
the Seljouk Turks first made their appearance on the eastern
frontier of the empire, Constantine IX. (A.D. 1045) destroyed
the Armenian kingdom of the Bagratidae which had long
guaranteed its safety, and thereby laid his dominions open to
the invaders; and the consequence was that within fifty years
the Seljouks had oceupied all the inland part of Asia Minor,
and had established their capital at Nicaea, in the immediate
neighbourhood of Constantinople. With the accession of
Alexius Comnenus a revival commenced, for the first Crusade,
which coincided with his reign, beat back the Seljouks, who
thenceforward fixed their capital at Iconium, on the south-eastern

BYZANTINE SATIRE. 243

frontier of Asia Minor; and Alexius himself, and his two
immediate successors, John and Manuel Comnenus, whose long
reigns extended over an entire century, were all distinguished
by personal courage and skill in war, by literary culture, and by
sagacity in politics, and were thus well qualified to impart fresh
vigour to the state. But the prevailing evils were incurable ; the
public service had become disorganised, the military spirit of the
nobles was impaired by luxury, and the trading privileges which
had been conceded to the Venetians and other commercial states
of the west, prepared the way for the decline of Greek commerce.
Everything depended on the existing sovereign, and it was in
the power of one bad emperor, like Andronicus Comnenus,
the last of his dynasty, to ruin all. It is one source of the
interest of the present satire, that it gives us some idea of the
state of the empire and of the condition of society at that
time.

The story commences, like that of the Necyomcnteia, by the
narrator, Timarion, being met on his return to Constantinople
after a lengthened absence by a friend, Cydion, who inquires the
reason of his delaying his return. As Cydion addresses him with
quotations from Homer, Timarion replies by passages from that
poet and Euripides, giving as his reason for so doing, not the
same explanation which Menippus gave, namely that he had been
in the company of the poets, but his desire to commence his
subject in a dignified manner, suitably to its tragic character.
However, when he is once started, he puts aside pedantry, and
gives a straightforward account of his journey. His object was
to visit Thessalonica for the festival of St. Demetrius, the patron
saint of that city, which was held on the 26th of October; and
the description he gives of the liberal hospitality which he
received on the way thither, and of the magnificence of the
entertainments at which he was present, gives us a high idea of
the prosperity of the provinces of Thrace and Macedonia at this
period, which is confirmed by what we learn from other sources.
His interrogator, imitating Philonides in his request to Menippus,
begs him not to hurry over the ground so fast, but to be more
communicative about the details of his journey; and Timarion,
thus encouraged, describes his hunting on the banks of the
Axius, in the interval which elapsed before the commencement
of the festival, for he hated idleness, he says, as a Jew hates

244 BYZANTINE SATIRE.’

pork—and then proceeds to give an account of the great fair, or
Demetria, as he calls it, which began six days before the Saint’s
day. It may be premised that Thessalonica, which is the scene
of this, is the Genoa of the Kast, for like that city it occupies
the innermost part of a bay, and its houses rise from the water’s
edge, and gradually ascend the hillsides towards the north.
Like Genoa, also, it holds a singularly advantageous position
with reference to trade with the interior of the country. Allow-
ing for a certain amount of exaggeration, this description gives
us a fair notion of the trade of the Eastern empire, and is
interesting as referring to the important silk manufactures of
Thebes and Corinth.

‘The Demetria is a festival, ike the Panathenaea at Athens,
and the Panionia among the Milesians, and it is at the same
time the most important fair held in Macedonia. Not only do
the natives of the country flock together to it in great numbers,
but multitudes also come from all lands and of every race—
Greeks, wherever they are found, the various tribes of Mysians
[i.e. people of Moesia] who dwell on our borders as far as the
Ister and Scythia, Campanians and other Italians, Iberians,
Lusitanians, and Transalpine Celts’—this is the Byzantine way
of describing the Bulgarians, &c., Neapolitans, Spaniards, Portu-
guese, and French; ‘and, to make a long story short, the shores
of the ocean send pilgrims and suppliants to visit the martyr, so
widely extended is his fame throughout Europe. For myself,
being a Cappadocian from beyond the boundaries of the empire,
—this country was now under the Seljouk sultans of Iconium—
‘and having never before been present on the occasion, but having
only heard it described, I was anxious to get a bird’s eye view
of the whole scene, that I might pass over nothing unnoticed.
With this object I made my way up to a height close by the
scene of the fair, where I sat down and surveyed everything at
my leisure. What I saw there was a number of merchants’
booths, set up in parallel rows opposite one another; and these
rows extended to a great length, and were sufficiently wide
apart to leave a broad space in the middle, so as to give free
passage for the stream of the people. Looking at the closeness
of the booths to one another and the regularity of their position,
one might take them for lines drawn lengthwise from two
opposite points. At right angles to these, other booths were

BYZANTINE SATIRE. 245

set up, also forming rows, though of no great length, so that
they resembled the tiny feet that grow outside the bodies of
certain reptiles. Curious indeed it was, that while in reality
there were two rows, they presented the appearance of a single
animal, owing to the booths being so near and so straight; for
the lines suggested a long body, while the crossrows at the sides
looked like the feet that supported it. I declare, when I looked
down from the heights above on the ground plan of the fair, I
could not help comparing it to a centipede, a very long insect
with innumerable small feet under its belly.

‘And if you are anxious to know what it contained, my
inquisitive friend, as I saw it afterwards when I came down
from the hills—well, there was every kind of material woven or
spun by men or women, all those that come from Boeotia and
the Peloponnese, and all that are brought in trading ships from
Italy to Greece. Besides this, Phoenicia furnishes numerous
articles, and Egypt, and Spain, and the pillars of Hercules,
where the finest coverlets are manufactured. These things the
merchants bring direct from their respective countries to old
Macedonia and Thessalonica; but the Euxine also contributes
to the splendour of the fair, by sending across its products to
Constantinople, whence the cargoes are brought by numerous
horses and mules. All this I went through and carefully
examined afterwards when I came down; but even while I
was still seated on the height above I was struck with wonder
at the number and variety of the animals, and the extraordinary
confusion of their noises which assailed my ears—horses neighing,
oxen lowing, sheep bleating, pigs grunting, and dogs barking,
for these also accompany their masters as a defence against
wolves and thieves.’

This curious passage is followed, first, by a description of the
nightly ceremonies of the festival of the Saint, and then by a
detailed account of a civil and military procession during the
day, in which the governor played a conspicuous part. This
person, who is called ‘the Duke’ (ὁ Aové), can be satisfactorily
identified with the Michael Palaeologus already mentioned, an
ancestor of the imperial family who ruled the Byzantine empire
during the last two centuries of its existence, by a play on his
name; for the writer goes out of his way to say, that the
grandfather of the Duke in consequence of ancient speeches

246 BYZANTINE SATIRE.

(παλαιοὶ λόγοιν made by him or about him, received a surname
implying the antiquity of his lineage. His family and personal
appearance are here described with much hyperbole of language,
for in this imstance the writer has fallen into the inflated style
of Byzantine diction, from which he has the merit of being
usually free. At the end of the day, when the ceremonies were
concluded, Timarion returned to his lodging, and there was
seized by a violent fever—an occurrence which must have been
common enough at times of pilgrimage, owing to the over-
crowding of the people, and the absence of sanitary arrange-
ments. The real interest of the story commences at this point,
for what has hitherto been related is introductory. After a few
days he felt better, and started on his homeward journey, but
on the way, when the fever had left him, an attack of inflam-
mation of the liver and dysentery supervened. All this is
described with a mixture of the comic and the pathetic which
is very amusing, and both the symptoms of the maladies and
their treatment are fully detailed, since the dénowement in great
measure turns upon them. . But besides this, it is evident that
one object of the piece is to satirize physicians and medical
theories, and that the writer had a tolerably intimate acquaint-
ance with the science of medicine. ‘Timarion perseveres in
travelling, notwithstanding extreme weakness, which caused
him, he says, to lie across a pack-horse like a bundle of
luggage; but at last, when he reaches the banks of the Hebrus,
his system can endure no longer, and he dies, or at least his
soul is separated from his body. What followed shall be told
in his own words.

‘Since my poor body, dear Cydion, was completely worn out,
partly by the dysentery, and still more by fasting for twenty
entire days, I began, as I thought, to sleep the last sleep. Now
there are in the universe certain avenging spirits, which by the
appointment of divine providence punish those who rebel against
the laws of God, and also good spirits, who reward the righteous ;
and others again there are, the conductors of souls, who bring
down to Pluto, Aeacus, and Minos in whatever way they can
the souls which have departed from their bodies, in order that,
when they have been examined according to the customs and
laws of the dead, they may afterwards receive their rightful
portion and abode. This last was what happened in my ease.

BYZANTINE SATIRE. 247

Shortly before midnight two men of shadowy form and dusky
aspect, flying through the air, presented themselves at my bed,
where I had Jain down and was endeavouring to slumber. As
soon as I beheld them I became numb at the strangeness of the
sight ; my voice was checked, though I tried to scream, and my
very organs of speech were paralysed. Whether what passed
was a dream or a reality I cannot tell, since fright deprived me
of all power of judgment; but it was so manifest, so perfectly
clear, that even now I seem to see it all before me; so terrified
was I at what then happened. And when they stood by me,
and laid as it were an indissoluble chain on my tongue, fettering
my speech either by the awfulness of the sight or by some
secret influence, they began to speak to one another in whispers,
saying— This is the man who has lost the fourth of his com-
ponent elements,! and he cannot be allowed to continue to live
on the strength of the remaining three ; because a sentence of
Aesculapius and Hippocrates has been written out and posted
up in Hades, to the effect that no man may live when one of
his four elements is wanting, even though his body may be in
good condition.” Then in harsher tones they exclaimed,
“ Follow us, you wretched creature, and be numbered among
your fellows, the dead.”’

The sentence here mentioned sounds almost lke an antici-
pation of the great dictum of the physician in Moliére, that it
is better for a patient to die in accordance with the rules
of medical practice, than to recover if they are neglected.
Timarion continues :—

‘Much against my will I followed (what else could I do, seeing
I was deprived of all succour ?), being borne through the air just
as they were borne, light, agile, imponderable, with my feet at
large, progressing without fatigue or difficulty, like a ship that.
runs before the wind, so that a slight rushing sound arose as I
passed, resembling the whizz of an arrow that is shot from a
bow. And when, without wetting our feet, we had crossed the
river that we hear of in the world above, and traversed the
Acherusian lake, to which my guides also gave that name, we
approached a subterraneous opening, much larger than what we
are wont to see in wells. There the darkness which was dimly

1 According to the ‘humoral patho- humours of the body were blood,
logy’ of Hippocrates, the four fluids or phlegm, black bile and yellow bile.

248 BYZANTINE SATIRE.

visible from the mouth had so disgusting and loathsome an ap-
pearance, that I declined to be conducted down ; but they separ-
ated and cut me off between them, and one of them, plunging
headforemost down the opening, with a savage look dragged me
after him. I laid hold of the pit’s mouth, and resisted with hands
and feet, until the one who followed behind, assailing me with
blows, first on my face, and afterwards on my back, forced me
down that gloomy chasm. From that point we journeyed a
long distance in darkness and solitude, and at last reached the
iron gate which closes the realm of Hades.’

This graphic, though ghastly, scene was probably suggested
by a passage in Lucian, where Hermes is described in very
similar language as performing the same office for the recal-
citrant shades, while they fling themselves on the ground, and
fight vigorously against him.’ It has been thought that the two
demons who conduct the dead, and whose names we afterwards
find to be Oxybas and Nyction (‘Speedy’ and ‘ Nightly’), are
a reproduction of Munker and Nekir, the Mahometan angels of
death; but it is much more likely that they were derived from
figures in some Byzantine fresco of the punishment of the
wicked, such as may be seen on the west front of the churches
in some Greek monasteries. Similar beings, both good and evil,
in the act of carrying off men’s souls, are represented in western
art; for instance, in the great frescoes relating to death and
judgment, in the Campo Santo at Pisa. Charon and his boat,
it will be observed, are ignored by our author.

At the gate the horrors of death are renewed. Here they
find Cerberus, and fiery-eyed serpents, and wild hideous men
who act as guards. All however exhibit a friendly spirit towards
his conductors, and allow them to enter, while the guards, after
carefully inspecting Timarion, recognise in him the man who
had already been the subject of discussion in Hades, as daring
to live in defiance of the physicians. ‘In with the wretch,’ they
exclaimed, ‘who holds his own views about the composition of
the body! Never shall any one live on earth without all the four
elementary humours!’ When once within, however, he finds
the general aspect of things less uncomfortable than might have
been expected. It was dark, indeed, but the inhabitants were
supplied with artificial lights, the brightness of which was

1 Dial, Mort. xxvii. 1.

BYZANTINE SATIRE. 249

regulated by the station in life of the owners; the poorer
having torches, and those of the middle class, wood and coal
fires, while the abodes of persons of distinction were brilliantly
illuminated by lamps. This difference of classes is noticeable
also in other points; thus, when the conductors of the dead pass
by, the common people stand up out of respect to them, ‘like
boys in the presence of their schoolmasters.’ The life in general,
to judge from the examples given—for no very definite concep-
tion of it is left on the mind—seems to be a pale reflexion of
the life in the world above. We are told, indeed, that all are
strictly judged, and we hear in passing of rewards and punish-
ments; but in most instances the suffering are seen still to
suffer, and the prosperous to enjoy themselves, and old faults of
character remain unchanged.

They had now ceased to fly, and being all rather tired by the
rapidity of their transit, walked leisurely along; and as the
conductors had been absent above ground for some time, they
frequently stopped to gossip with the inhabitants, thus giving
Timarion time to look about him. These opportunities he
employed in recognising and conversing with various persons,
who had either been known to him in life, or were important
historical figures shortly before his time, and who therefore were
interesting to his contemporaries. Even where the names of
these are not given, it must have been an easy matter to
identify them, owing to the minuteness with which their
personal appearance is described. The first that he saw—in a
brightly lighted place, which implied that its occupant was a
person of distinction—was an old man, seated in a reclining
posture, with a large bowl of bacon and Phrygian cabbage by
his side, of which mess he was shovelling large handfuls into
his mouth. ‘Two well-fed mice, like those which, we are here
told, the people of that time used to keep as pets in their
houses, were waiting to lick the old man’s beard when he fell
asleep after his meal. He wore a good-humoured expression, and
requested the newly arrived stranger to partake with him; but
this offer Timarion declined, for fear of trespassing too far on the
indulgence of his guards. A common man now came up, and
he inquired of him who the genial old gourmand was; but in
reply he was informed that the mention of his name was strictly
forbidden by the authorities, though the circumstances of his

ya —VoOu: II, 5

250 BYZANTINE SATIRE.

life were accurately detailed. His being of a noble family in
Great Phrygia, from which country the Palaeologi came, and
the praise which is accorded to him notwithstanding his greedi-
ness, coupled with the reserve about his name, suggest that he
was a near relation of the great man who appeared in the
procession at Thessalonica. There can be no doubt that
gluttony is one of the failings satirized in this piece, for it
is referred to on several subsequent occasions, though rather as
a subject for laughter than for reprobation, and no punishment
is awarded to it. Another shade a little later on, perceiving by
a slight trace of colour in Timarion’s cheeks that he had newly
arrived from above, addresses him thus—‘ Hail, freshman among
the dead, and tell me about affairs in the upper world. How
many mackerel for an obol? What do tunnies and anchovies
cost? What’s the price of oil, wine, corn, &c.? and—most
important of all, though I almost overlooked it—has there been
a good catch of sardines? For when I was alive they were my
favourite dish, and I preferred them even to pike.’ From this
we learn that fish were esteemed as great a delicacy in the days
of the Comneni as they were in those of Aristophanes. Even the
distinguished orator who advocates Timarion’s cause before the
judement-seat, pleads guilty to the same failing. When our hero
hardly recognises him, owing to the improvement in his appear-
ance after death, he explains this by saying, that in his lifetime
he was a martyr to the gout, owing to over-indulgence in the
pleasures of the table, so that when he made an oration before the
emperor he had to be brought in on a litter; but the spare diet
of the lower world, mallows and asphodel, bad completely restored
his health. His old penchant, however, had not entirely left
him, for he requests as his fee, that if his client is restored to
life, he will send him down some of his favourite dainties,
adding some severe remarks on the meagreness of the broth
that was allowed in Hades. What is here implied concerning
this vice of Byzantine society, is corroborated by what we
learn from other writers concerning the luxury and self-indul-
gence of the upper classes at that period.

The next figure that attracted Timarion’s attention was that
of the Emperor Romanus IV. (Diogenes), the same on whose
neck, after the great battle of Manzikert, in which he was taken
prisoner, Alp Arslan placed his foot; and who, on his return to

BYZANTINE SATIRE. 251

Constantinople, was dethroned, and blinded with such barbarity
as to cause his death. He is described as a man of great stature
and grand appearance ; but his eyes are seen to be gouged, and
as he hes in his tent he utters constant lamentations, while
poison trickles from his mouth. The last point refers to the
attempt that was made to take his hfe. By his side sits a
courtier, who out of compassion for his sufferings tries to console
him, but in vain. The tragic story of his misfortunes is then
related. The circumstance that this emperor, whose death
occurred more than half a century before this time, was of
Cappadocian extraction, and therefore a fellow-countryman of
Timarion, may perhaps explain the interest that the writer felt
in him.

As he proceeds, he is met by a man whose appearance is
graphically detailed, and who, after eying him for some time,
at length, like Brunetto Latini in a similar passage in Dante’s
Inferno, suddenly recognises him as an old and favourite pupil.
This is the famous rhetorician Theodore of Smyrna. After
mutual greetings, Timarion describes to him the circumstances
of his death, and complaining that he has been unfairly treated,
begs his tutor to undertake a suit in his behalf against Oxybas
and Nyction, which he promises to do. Timarion, however, is
anxious to know whether his case is likely to receive a fair
hearing, because as Aeacus and Minos, the judges, are Hellenes,
they are likely to be prejudiced against him and his advocate,
who are ‘Galilaeans.’ I need hardly remark that the word
“Ἕλλην at this time was used for a pagan, while a Greek was
“Ῥωμαῖος. The rhetorician replies, with no lack of self-assertion,
that his best ground of confidence is his own ability, and adds
that, having a slight knowledge of medicine, he can easily
arrange his arguments so as to confound the ancient divinities.
Both here and in subsequent passages it is clear that the
sophists of that age are made a subject of satire, in addition to
the two former classes of the physicians and the gourmands. He
next describes the composition of the court of justice by which
the dead are tried, and this is one of the most original points in
the story.

In the first place, the great physicians of antiquity—Aescu-
lapius, Hippocrates, Erasistratus, and Galen—had been con-
stituted a body of assessors to advise the judges, because they

δ

252 BYZANTINE SATIRE.

were most likely to be acquainted with the causes of death.
Like coroners, they were qualified to determine whether a man’s
life had come to an end by fair means. Of their capacities,
however, Theodore has a very poor opinion. He says that
Aesculapius had not spoken for many years, an! if he was
forced to reply, did so only by the movement of his !\ead. This
means, no doubt, that since the extinction of heatiienism the
oracles, and among them those of this divinity, had given no
responses. Hippocrates was a little more communicative, but
even he only enunciated short enigmatical aphorisms, of which
specimens are given; and as these were in the lonic dialect,
which Hippocrates uses in his writings, as soon as they were
uttered, Minos and Aeacus, to whom they were only half in-
telligible, burst out laughing. Erasistratus he regarded as a
mere empirical practitioner. Galen was a more formidable
person to cope with, but he by good luck was now unable to
attend, being engrossed by the work of bringing out an enlarged
edition of his treatise on fevers. Possibly this means that this
work was at that time being edited or adapted by some writer on
medicine at Constantinople. All this, the sophist continued,
was in their favour, and in other respects the court was satis-
factory. For Aeacus and Minos, though heathens, were strictly
just, and complete toleration was established in Hades, every
man being allowed to adhere to his own religious persuasion.
Still, as the tenets of the Galilaeans had pervaded all Europe
and a great part of Asia, ‘Providence’ thought good (ἔδοξε τῇ
προνοίᾳ) to appoint a third judge to sit along with the heathen
judges. The name of the person selected for this office comes
upon us as a great surprise. We should have expected that a
writer of that age would fix on some one distinguished by rigid
orthodoxy ; but, on the contrary, it is a vigorous iconoclast, the
Emperor Theophilus, who lived early in the ninth century, and
‘was famed for his impartial justice.

They now move onwards, the two friends and the two
conductors of the dead, the latter of whom receive warning
that they will be summoned to trial for arresting a soul under
false pretences. After journeying for two miles they perceive a
light in the distance, and when they reach it find themselves in
a delightful spot, closely resembling Dante’s Earthly Paradise,
‘where there are groves and shrubberies, with singing-birds, and

BYZANTINE SATIRE, 253

green turf, and falling water, and a wide river running through
it; here there is eternal spring, and the fruits never wither on
the trees. This is the Elysian plain and asphodel meadow.
Within it is held the court of justice, and here Minos, Aeacus,
and Theophilus the ‘Galilaean’ are found in session, the two
former being gaily attired, while the Christian Emperor wears
dark and squalid garments; this is here said to have been his
custom in life, though the point is not noticed by contemporary
historians. By his side stands a prompter, whose sexless ap-
pearance, white raiment, and beaming countenance excite
Timarion’s curiosity; and he is informed, with a slightly
profane allusion to the idea of a guardian angel, which we
should hardly expect to meet with in an orthodox Byzantine
writer, that every Christian emperor has such an angel assigned to
him to suggest huw he should act, and that the one who attended
on Theophilus had accompanied him to the world below.

The trial which follows is a sort of travesty of an Athenian
lawsuit, though modified, probably, so as to suit the forms of
Byzantine procedure. The accused, Oxybas and Nyction, are
brought into court by the εἰσαγωγεῖς, and at a signal from one
of these, the rhetorician, after composing his countenance and
folding his hands, commences ove rotundo the speech for the
prosecution. In this he points out that the laws of the dead
prescribed that no soul may be brought down to Hades, unless
some vital organ has been destroyed, and that even then three
days must elapse before the conductors of the dead are allowed to
seize it; in Timarion’s case, not only had these been disregarded,
but there were traces of blood about his soul, which proved that
he was not properly dead when he was carried off. When
Minos, who from the first seems disposed to take a severe view
of the case, sharply orders the accused to give an account of
their proceedings, Nyction, after referring to their lony ex-
perience of their office, which dated from the time of Cronos,
replies by appealing to the dictum of the physicians with regard
to the four elementary humours, and showing that they had reason
to believe that he had lost one of them, The matter thus becomes .
a question for the medical referees, and the judges adjourn the
trial till the third day, so as to allow of their being consulted.
Meanwhile both parties in the dispute are conducted to a
region of twilight, which intervenes between Elysium and the

254 BYZANTINE SATIRE,

land of total darkness, and regale themselves on the fragrant
herbs that grow there.

When the morning of the third day appeared, they returned
to the court, where they found Aesculapius and Hippocrates
seated along with the judges; the former having his face
enveloped in a transparent veil, from a foolish pride about
revealing his divinity, though it allowed of his seeing through
it; while Hippocrates wore a tall turban and a single garment
reaching to his feet, and had a long beard and closely-shaven
crown, After the clerk of the court had read the minutes of
the previous proceedings, and Aesculapius and Hippocrates had
had a private consultation with Erasistratus, the symptoms of
the patient and the circumstances of his death were minutely
inquired into; during which proceeding the volubility and
self-assertion of Theodore of Smyrna made so great an impres-
sion on Hippocrates, that he took the opportunity of asking for
information about him. Ultimately the question turned on the
condition of Timarion’s soul, and to inquire into this two ex-
aminers, called Oxydercion and Nyctoleustes (‘Sharpeye’ and
‘Nightspy’), were appointed ; they reported that it was in an
impure state, and that tiny particles of flesh and blood were still
adhering to it. This evidence of the experts was at once
appealed to by the counsel for the prosecution, as showing
that the elementary bile could not have been exhausted, for
otherwise the soul would have separated easily and cleanly from
the body. The arguments on both sides being now concluded,
silence was proclaimed in the court, and the judges, after con-
ferring with the physicians, gave their votes by ballot, and the
result was in favour of the plaintiff. Oxybas and Nyction were
deposed from their office of conductors of the dead, and Timarion
was ordered to be restored to life.

While the sentence was being written out, a new person is
introduced, called ‘the Byzantine sophist,’ who is the chief
officer of the court under the judges, having been appointed to
that office on account of his cleverness in extemporizing. Who
he was we recognise, as we did Michael Palaeologus before, by
a play on his name. He is described as speaking indistinctly
(ὑποψελλίζων), and this word suggests that he is Michael
Psellus, the most learned man in the Byzantine empire during
the eleventh century, who held the office of Prince of Philoso-

BYZANTINE SATIRE. 255

phers, ὅ.0, chief teacher of philosophy and dialectic, at Constan-
tinople, and played no inconsiderable part in the politics of lis
time. This view is confirmed by other circumstances which are
here mentioned. He now receives the judgment from the
bench, and dictates it to the scribe, after which the court rises.
And as they departed, ‘all the Christians shouted aloud, and
leapt for joy, and embraced the sage of Smyrna, and extolled
him to the skies for his skilful arguments, and the method and
arrangement of his speech,’—a truly Greek proceeding.

The duty of reconducting Timarion to the upper world is
entrusted to the eicaywyeis. On the return journey he visits
the abode of the philosophers, a quiet retreat resembling that in
which they are assembled in Dante’s Limbo, and sees many
of the sages of ancient Greece calmly conversing together, and
discussing various tenets. Their tranquillity, however, was on
this occasion disturbed by an untoward incident. This was a
violent altercation between Diogenes the Cynic and Johannes
Italus, the clever and prolific writer who succeeded Pseilus in
the office of Prince of Philosophers, and was a bitter opponent
of his. This man, as we learn from contemporary writers, was
headstrong in his opinions, so that for a time he was regarded
as a heresiarch, and arrogant and passionate in disputation ;
these peculiarities are here caricatured, and the good-humoured
tone of the satire passes for once into violent invective. After a
while Cato interposes, and having separated the combatants, con-
ducts the Byzantine into the company of the dialecticians, but
they also rise up against lim and pelt him with stones as a
charlatan. Shortly afterwards Psellus appears, and is received
with friendliness and respect, though not on terms of equality,
by the philosophers, but with enthusiasm by the dialecticians,
who pay him the highest compliments, and offer him the
president’s chair. From the contrast which is thus drawn
between these leaders, we should gather that the rivalry
between their followers, or at all events the controversy with
regard to their respective merits, had not died out when this
satire was composed. Theodore of Smyrna also comes in for
some further criticisms; and altogether, throughout this part
of the narrative, the elaborate terms which are used for the
different branches of the science of oratory, the profusion of
epithets applied to grace of style, and the gusto with which a

256 BYZANTINE SATIRE.

bold and felicitous expression is quoted, impress the reader
forcibly with the importance attached at this period to the
study of rhetoric in all its branches.

At this point Timarion takes leave of his friendly advocate,
and that kind-hearted epicure, in the midst of many affectionate
speeches, does not fail to specify the articles which he desires to
be forwarded to him in acknowledgment of his services—‘a
lamb five months old; two three-year-old fowls, hens, fattened
and killed, like those that poulterers have for sale in the market
with the fat neatly extracted from the stomach and laid upon
the thighs; a sucking-pig one month old; and a good rich fleshy
sow’s paunch.’ Resuming his journey, our traveller takes a
passing glance at Nero and other cruel tyrants in history, among
whom Philaretus, a hard-handed Armenian usurper of the
eleventh century, holds a conspicuous place, undergoing the
same unsavoury punishment as the flatterers in Dante’s
Inferno; and at last reaches the mouth of the pit, through
which he ascends and once more sees the stars. His return to
his body is described as follows :—

‘Now when I knew not which way to turn to reach my body,
I was borne along through the air as if carried by the wind, till
I came to the river and recognised the house in which my poor
body lay. There, on the river’s bank, I said farewell to my
conductor, and leaving him, entered through the opening in the
roof, a device which has been invented for the escape of smoke
from the hearth,’—this looks as if chimneys, which were almost
unknown to the Greeks and Romans, were now coming in—‘and
approaching close to my body entered through the mouth and
nostrils. I found it very cold, owing to the frosty winter season,
and still more to its having been dead; and that night I felt
like a person with a violent chill. The next day, however,
I packed up my things, and continued my journey to Con-
stantinople.’

The satirical romance, of which a sketch has thus been given,
is certainly amusing, and not wanting in originality. Though
somewhat discursive and episodical in its plan, it is full of
movement from first to last: it passes by rapid transitions from
grave to gay; its sketches of men and manners are very graphic;
and its style is lively and often epigrammatic. Owing to its
notices of historical characters, and its descriptions of life and

BYZANTINE SATIRE. 257

customs, for which we look in vain in ordinary Byzantine writers,
it cannot fail to interest those who care for the history of the
Eastern empire. If any of the questions which it makes the
object of special criticism, such as exploded medical theories,
have lost their point for us; the same can be said of satire in all
ages, where it does not deal with matters of universal applica-
tion, and will certain'y be the case in future days with much of
the humorous criticism of our time. This is also true of
descriptions of the characteristics of persons, who were then
well known, but are now either altogether unknown to us, or at
the best but shadowy figures ; we experience the same difficulty
when we try to become familiar with some of the characters in
Aristophanes. But notwithstanding these drawbacks, ‘Timarion’s
Sufferings’ is a remarkable work, and we have good reason to
be satisfied that it has been preserved.

Tae other Byzantine satire, which we are to notice, and which
forms in many ways a strong contrast to this, is

THE SoJOURN OF MAZARIS IN HADES.

At the time when this was written the Byzantine empire had
become a shadow of its former self. Instead of including, as it
did under the Comneni, a large part of Asia Minor, and in
Europe an extent of country as great as, though not exactly
corresponding to, European Turkey before the Treaty of Berlin,
it was now restricted to Constantinople and the neighbouring
district, a few of the islands, as Lemnos and Thasos, Thessalonica,
and the greater part of the Peloponnese. The Fourth Crusade
had intervened, and by it the fabric of the Eastern empire had
been shattered in pieces and its territory partitioned ; and though
the Greeks afterwards regained possession of the capital, and
gradually reannexed several of the provinces, yet the body had
now lost its power of cohesion. Meanwhile the Ottoman Turks
had appeared on the scene, and extending their conquests from
Asia to Europe, had absorbed one after another of the possessions
of the Christians. Yet the second decade of the fifteenth
century, to which ‘ Mazaris’ is shown to belong by the events
which it mentions, was in some degree a period of revival.
Though the expedition of Manuel Palaeologus II. to Western
Europe had sufficiently proved to the Greeks that there was

258 BYZANTINE SATIRE,

no hope of substantial aid from that quarter, yet the great blow
which the Ottoman power received through the defeat of Sultan
Bajazet by Timour at the battle of Angora in 1402 secured to
the Greeks a respite, which they employed in strengthening
their position. The terms of contempt with which Bajazet is
spoken of in this satire (ὁ κατάπτυστος ἐκεῖνος σατράπης), and
the title of ‘invincible’ applied to the emperor (ὁ ἀήττητος
αὐτοκράτωρ), Would have been almost absurd in the time of his
predecessor, John V., who formally acknowledged himself a vassal
of the Sultan. . Yet, as we read it, we feel that the society which
it describes is that of a kingdom doomed to fall. The disaffection
among the provincials, aud still more the want of patriotism, the
egotism and self-seeking, of the upper class, and the narrow and
petty subjects which occupied their thoughts, show that no true
spirit remained on which a vigorous resistance could be based.
The story of Mazaris need not detain us very long, for it is
not the prominent feature, as in Timarion, but serves rather as
a framework for the satire and invective, which it is the writer's
object to give vent to. Like the former tale, it describes the
illness of the narrator, which in this case was owing to a violent
epidemic that visited Constantinople, probably in the year 1414.
He speaks of his desolate condition, when his friends and relations,
who were in the same plight, were unable to visit him, and his
sick-bed was watched, not by physicians, but by the ravens who
were waiting for his remains, At last he fell asleep, and was
conscious of being carried otf at dead of night, he knew not how,
until he found himself in a wide and deep valley. [ἢ any one
doubts his veracity, he challenges him to bring a suit against
him in the court of Minos, Aeacus, and Rhadamanthys, in order
that, if convicted, he may suffer the punishment they shall
impose. The account given of the passage to Hades is vague
enough, and forms a strong contrast to the elaborate details
given in Timarion; but this same absence of explanation is
characteristic of other descriptions of the same kind, such as
those in the Odyssey and in the Frogs of Aristophanes, in both
of which it would be equally difficult to say in what way the
transition is effected. We may notice in passing another point
of correspondence between the Inferno of Mazaris and that of
Aristophanes, in the introduction of myrtle-groves in both.?

1 Ar, Lan. 156.

BYZANTINE SATIRE. 259

The valley in which Mazaris was deposited contained a crowd
of dead persons, all naked, and mingled indiscriminately to-
gether; but some of them were marked with numerous weals,
the result of their former sins, while others were free from these
ignominious tokens. The idea here expressed, though it appears
in various forms in several ancient writers, was probably derived
by the author from Lucian’s Cataplus, where it is said that
the crimes that a man commits become invisible punctures on
his soul, which make themselves manifest on his form after
death. One of these persons soon recognised him by his
limping gait, a peculiarity of his which is several times
referred to, and which, we can hardly doubt, arose from the
gout, for he suffered from that disease, and the same epithet
(ευλλοποδίων) that is applied to him is subsequently used of
another gouty subject. From this it would seem that good
living was still a vice of the Byzantines. This man addresses
him with an adaptation of the first words of the Hecuba, the
same which Menippus had used at the beginning of the Necyo-
manteia, and then proceeds to question him about the latest
news from the Imperial court, his interest in which proclaims
him one of its former inmates. His name was Holobolus, and
he is described as having a prominent aquiline nose, the sharp-
ness of which corresponds to his extreme inquisitiveness; in his
lifetime he had been a rhetorician and physician, and one of
the Emperor’s secretaries, and from the character which is
subsequently given of him, and the traits which show themselves
in the course of conversation, we see in him the type of the
place-hunting, backbiting, scandal-mongering courtier. Among
other pieces of advice which he offers to Mazaris, he urges him
to betake himself to the Morea, and to attach himself to one of
those in authority in that country in the hope of advancement—
a suggestion which the recipient has reason subsequently to
believe to have been made in a malicious spirit. The Morea at
that time was ruled by Theodore Palaeologus II., the elder
brother of the last emperor of Constantinople, Constantine XL,
with the title of despot, which was now regularly conferred on
the member of the imperial family who governed that province.

When Mazaris recognises Holobolus, whom, owing to his
nakedness and the numeyous scars on his person, he had not

1 Lucian, Cataplus, c. 24, cf. Plato, Gorgias, p. 524 E.

260 BYZANTINE SATIRE,

discovered before, he inquires of him the cause of the miserable
change in his appearance ; whereupon Holobolus leads him to a
place a little further off, where they can rest under the shade of
a spreading bay-tree, and there recounts to him the story of his
rise to power, which culminated in his accompanying the Emperor
Manuel on his journey to France and England, subsequently
to which he had a prospect of being appointed to the oftice of
Grand Logothete. Afterwards, with many tears, he gives an
account of his fall, which was owing primarily to a disgraceful
intrigue with a nun, which led him to neglect his official duties,
and gave his enemies a handle against him; but it was em-
bittered by the treacherous artifices by which his secrets were
wormed out of him, and by the purloining of his confidential
papers when he lay on his deathbed, which he intended either
to have burnt or to have had buried with him. During this
conversation, which is supposed to have been conducted in
perfect privacy, mention is made of many of the public men
of the time, and among them, in no complimentary terms, of
an important person, called Padiates, who had greatly influenced,
for good or for evil, the fortunes of both the interlocutors.
Suddenly at this point a figure arises from the myrtle bushes
in the neighbourhood, and to their no small confusion the great
Padiates himself (Iladvatns ὁ πάνυ), who has been lying in
ambush, and has overheard the whole dialogue, stands before
them, with fury depicted on his countenance, and a club in his
hands. Thereupon a vigorous altercation follows, interlarded
with strong vituperation ; and this at last becomes so intolerably
personal, that Padiates raises his club, and fells Holobolus to
the ground.

The outcry and excitement caused by this occurrence soon
bring numbers of the dead up to the spot, and foremost among
them Pepagomenus, once the court physician, who attends to
the wounded man, and stanches the blood with a healing herb.
He is anxious for news of his two sons, one of whom was about
the court, the other practising as a physician. Then other
courtiers follow in turn, and as all are anxious for the latest
information from the new-comer, opportunity is given both for
ridiculing their peculiarities, and for satirizing the living through
their mouths. One of these inquires about his former mistress,
whose bloom, he is told, has now faded, and whose large fortune

BYZANTINE SATIRE. 261

has been squandered; another wishes to hear of a man who
defrauded him of money, and whom he intends to indict as soon
as he comes down below. Several ask after their sons, towards
whom, as a general rule, they seem to bear no good will—one,
who is described as dyeing his hair and beard black with ravens’
evgs, inquiring about a son who has apostatised to Mahomet-
anism; a second, whether his sons are eavesdroppers as he was
himself; and so on. By the time that the reader has had his
fill of this kind of scandal, Holobolus has recovered ; and rising
up he takes Mazaris by the hand, and leads him to a spot
corresponding to the descriptions of Elysium, where there are
elms and plane trees and singing-birds. But even in this happy
place the topics of conversation are the same, for the imperial
choir-master, Lampadarius, whom he finds here, takes the
opportunity, when speaking of his surviving relations, of lashing
the monks (ναζιραῖοι) in no measured language, saying that the
monastic dress is made to conceal all kinds of licentiousness ;
the same charge comes up in other parts of the story. Long
before this, Mazaris had complained that his head ached with
listening and talking, and at last Holobolus suggests to him a
mode of escape. Pointing out to him the deep bed of a stream
in the neighbourhood, shaded with trees, he tells him to make a
pretence of retiring thither, and adds that, when he has concealed
himself there for a little while, he will be able to return to the
upper world again.

In this somewhat abrupt way the narrative ends, but not the
entire piece. There follow four compositions, which are intended
to form a pendant to what precedes, though no actual attempt
is made to connect them withit. The first of these is a dialogue
between Mazaris, after his return to life, and Holobolus, which,
both from its heading, and from the way in which it is subse-
quently spoken of, must be regarded as taking place in a dream ;
the three others are letters written in connection with it. The
object aimed at in all of them is evidently to satirize the Moreotes.
In the dream Mazaris complains to Holobolus that he had
practised upon him with his former deceptive arts, in advising
him to make his fortune in the Morea, for. though he had been
residing there fourteen months he was in a worse plight than
before, and began to doubt whether Tartarus or Peloponnesus
was the most objectionable. Holobolus replies that, having

262 BYZANTINE SATIRE.

himself visited that country in company with the Emperor,
he had received large presents, and had every reason to be
satisfied; but he would be glad to hear what the real state
of things is. Accordingly, it is arranged that Mazaris shall
send him a letter on the subject by the hands of some one
lately dead by way of Taenarum, that entrance to the lower
world being near Sparta—that is, Misithra or Mistra, the
Byzantine headquarters in that province—where Mazaris was
residing. The letter, which follows, mentions the visit of
the Emperor Manuel to the Morea, and his constructing the
fortification across the Isthmus of Corinth, which was intended
to check the advance of the Turks; but it is mostly occupied
with virulent detraction of ail classes inhabiting the peninsula,
but especially of the local governors or archonts (here called
τοπαρχοί) on account of their resistance to the emperor. The
next letter purports to be from Holobolus in Hades to a physician,
Nicephorus Palaeologus Ducas, with the object of consoling him
for his enforced residence in Peloponnesus and the loss of the
enjoyments of Constantinople, which latter he enumerates with
the enthusiasm with which a Parisian in exile might speak of
the delights of Paris. The remedy which he recommends to
him is a draught of the water of Lethe, which he says he has
himself partaken of, though notwithstanding this he rather
inconsistently recurs to past pleasures and chagrins. This letter,
as might be expected, has a sting in its tail, for it ends with
malicious insinuations on the part of Holobolus with regard to
some supposed malpractices of his correspondent. Palaeologus
in his reply does not fail to fasten on the weak point in his
assailant’s remarks, and twits him with the poor effect the
draught of forgetfulness seems to have had in his case.

The suddenness of the conclusion at this point, and the want
of method in all the latter part, show how much more satire and
detraction were aimed at by the author than literary complete-
ness. This feature requires to be borne in mind in estimating
the work and its contents. Though we can hardly doubt, after
reading it, that the Greek Kingdom, the life of which it describes
from a courtier’s point of view, deserved its impending fate, yet
it is evident that the writer was a man of a bitter and malevolent
spirit, who took the worst view of the men of his time, and was
greatly influenced by personal spite and jealousy. Our interest

BYZANTINE SATIRE. 263

in it would probably be increased, if we knew more of the
personages spoken of. Unfortunately, almost all of them are
names to us and nothing more, owing to the absence of any
contemporary history of the period. But for this very reason the
story has a value of its own, as throwing light on the state of
society in an obscure age, and furnishing evidence with regard to
certain facts of history. Thus, we hear of the Emperor Manuel’s
progress to Thasos, Thessalonica, and the Peloponnese, and of the
measures he set on foot there to consolidate his power. Neigh-
bouring Christian states are mentioned, where Holobolus advises
Mazaris, if he cannot ultimately get profitable employment in the
Morea, to betake himself either to Crete, which was then in the
possession of Venice, or to the despot of Cephalonia—that is,
Charles Tocco II., who at this time was in possession of part of
Elis and Achaia. We see the close connection existing between
the inhabitants of Constantinople and the people of Wallachia,
from the mention of Greeks going to that country from the
capital, and making large fortunes in the service of the voivodes,
just as has been the case in later times, when the hospodars of
Wallachia and Moldavia were chosen from among the Fanariote
Greeks. The Turkish names which are borne by persons of some
position at Constantinople,—Seselkoi, Meliknasar, Aidin (Αὐτένης)
are an evidence of the influence which the future conquerors
had already begun to exercise. Finally, the condition of the
Peloponnese is largely illustrated; but this point I leave, for a
detailed account of the state of things in that province belongs
rather to a historical notice of the time than to our present
subject.

The language in which ‘Timarion’ and ‘Mazaris’ are composed
is the contemporary Greek that was used in the Byzantine court
and in polite conversation. This spoken language was the lineal
descendant of Hellenic, as distinguished from Romaic, Greek ;
and therefore, as this continued to be used until the overthrow
of the Empire, Dr. Ellissen’s statement is true, that Hellenic
Greek first became a dead language after the fall of Constanti-
nople.t It differed, that writer remarks, on the one hand, from
the language used in the regular Byzantine literature, and on
the other, far more widely from the popular Greek of the period.
The former of these, though based on the same “common”’

1 Ellissen, Analecten, vol. iv. part 1, p. 37.

264 BYZANTINE SATIRE.

dialect of the Macedonian Greeks, as it had been transmitted
with various modifications by the later Greek writers and the
fathers of the Church, was yet to a great extent a factitious
language, the uniformity of which was maintained by traditional
imitation of Attic authors, and which approached nearer to, or
receded further from, the classical standard according to the
cultivation of the writer. The latter was the humbler, but not
less lineal, descendant of ancient Greek, which diverged from the
written language certainly as early as the fourth century after
Christ, and by the end of the ninth century was the only Greek
intelligible to the great bulk of the people; when the Greeks
ceased to be a nation, it became universal, and a refined idiom of
it—the ‘ volgare illustre,’ as Daute might say—is the Modern
Greek of the present day. But though poetical compositions of
some merit existed in the popular language in the time of the
Comneni, yet the ‘good society’ of Constantinople held aloof
from it; so much so, that even a person who sympathised with
the provincials, like the excellent Archbishop Michael Acominatus
of Athens at the end of the twelfth century, could profess after
three years’ residence in that city, that he could hardly understand
the dialect spoken there; and the author of ‘ Mazaris’ during
his residence at Sparta, when speaking of the speech of the
Tzakones in the neighbourhood of that place—whose name he
identifies, like some modern writers, with that of the Lacones—
quotes as specimens of their barbarous idiom words, most of
which are ordinary Romaic forms, and are not peculiar, if they
belong at all, to that singular dialect, thus betraying his ignorance
of the popular Greek. We may notice in passing, how great an
advance has been made in the study of Modern Greek, when we
find Hase saying, in speaking of these Tzaconian words—that
they may be of some interest to those who ‘prétendent que le
grec vulgaire, tel ἃ peu prés qu il est parlé aujourd’hui par le
peuple, remonte ἃ une époque bien antérieure ἃ la prise de
Constantinople.’ 2

The Greek of Mazaris, however, is considerably debased from
that of Timarion, a natural result of nearly three centuries of
misfortune and degradation which elapsed between them. This

1 See the passage quoted by M. Lam- 2 Notices des Manuscrits, vol. ix.

bros in his pamphlet, Ai ᾿Αθῆναι wep) τὰ ~—s part 2, p. 136.
τέλη Tov δωδεκάτου αἰῶνος, p. 45.

BYZANTINE SATIRE, 265

is traceable partly in the growth of unclassical usages, especially
in respect of faults of syntax; but far more in the vocabulary.
In Timarion we meet with many rare words, which are either
genuinely classical or are found in later Greek, and these are
interesting to the student. But in Mazaris it is a sign of
depraved taste that far-fetched expressions and extravagance of
language are cultivated for their own sake, and poetical, comic,
ancient and modern, sacred and profane, even dialectic words
are introduced in the oddest way, so as to produce a strange
jumble. It may be worth while to give some instances of these.
Far-fetched expressions are such as ἀρχιθύτης for the Patriarch
of Constantinople, πίστιν χαμαιλεοντικήν for ‘untrustworthy
allegiance.’ As dialectic forms we may notice ἐξεφαάνθη and
aidao: as Homeric words βροτολοιγός and κυλλοποδίων : as
poetical words πολυύμνητος, οὐρεσίτροφος, ἑλέπολις---ἃπά many
others might be added, though it is to be observed that some
words which are poetical in classical writers passed into more
common use at a later time. But the largest contribution to the
vocabulary of extravagance is derived from the comedians ; as,
κεκοισυρωμένη for ‘ a self-indulgent woman,’ κυμινοπρίστης
‘a skin-flint, ἀνθοσμίας ‘wine with a bouquet, ὡρακιᾶν ‘to
faint, φληναφᾶν, or rather, as it appears here, φληναφεῖν, ‘to
babble’; and the way in which τετρεμαίνω, ἀπεριμερίμνως,
and numerous other words are casually introduced shows how
thoroughly the writer's language was steeped in Aristophanes.
Mixed with these occur mediaeval terms, which, though most
of them are used by the Byzantine historians, yet in a work
of fiction, like the present, fall strangely on a modern ear; as
καβαλλάριος, ‘knight, δομεστικός, here ‘a church officer,’
δρουγγάριος, ‘military or naval commander,’ βοεβόδα, ‘ voivode,’
ἴνδικτος, ‘the indiction, and others derived from a Western
source, as μπαντιάτης, ‘ bandit, ποτεστάτος, the ‘ podesta’ of
the Genoese settlement at Galata, φλωρίον, ‘florin.” Even a
Turkish word is found—ocov7acts, 1.6. subashi, the name of a
Turkish officer. The medley of language thus produced conduces
not a little to the bizarre character of the entire composition,
which renders it exceedingly amusing.

A further peculiarity is the quotations, which the author is
never tired of introducing. He was evidently very familiar with
the classical literature, for he quotes Homer, Hesiod, Sophocles,

ἘΠ S:—VOL. 11. a

266 BYZANTINE SATIRE.

Euripides, Aristophanes, Demosthenes, Aristotle, and Theocritus;
to which we may add the Septuagint, the New Testament,
Lucian, Synesius, ‘and Gregory Nazianzen: and the passages
taken from these are evidently not obtained by him at second-
hand. Sometimes they occur without notice as part of the
narrative or dialogue, sometimes they are prefaced by κατὰ τὸν
ποιητήν or κατὰ τὸν εἰπόντα, less frequently the name of the
writer is given. They are made to suit all kinds of subjects.
A pretender to omniscience is τὸν οἰόμενον εἰδέναι τά T ἐόντα τά
τ᾽ ἐσσόμενα πρό T ἐόντα: a person of low origin is spoken of as
φορῶν διφθέραν : a man in fear says πεφόβημαι καθάπερ πτηνῆς
ὄμμα πελείας : one seeking revenge is told ἔσχες κότον ὄφρα
τελέσσῃς : Mazaris is advised to leave the Peloponnese, if he is
in poverty, ἵνα μὴ λιμώξῃς ὡς κύων Kal τὴν Σπάρτην κυκλοῖς.
A curious mixture of passages is seen in ἐπειδήπερ, καθ᾽
Ὅμηρον, μόρον ἀμήχανον, κἂν ἐν οἰκίσκῳ σαυτὸν καθείρξῃς,
οὐχ ὑπαλύξαις. Homer and Aristophanes are the authors most
often cited, especially the latter, whom he speaks of as ὁ κωμικός,
and of all his plays the Plutus is the one which occurs to him
most readily. Plays on words and names are also of frequent
occurrence. We have seen that these are found occasionally in
Timarion, and even Lucian does not altogether despise them, as
when in the Vera Historia the island of cheese in the sea of milk
is said to have a temple of Γαλάτεια, and to have been ruled
by Τυρώ, daughter of Salmoneus! But in Mazaris they are
rampant. Now and then they are mere puns on ordinary words
or names of places, introduced for the sake of the jingle of sound,
as ἀντὶ ἰατρῶν τοὺς τοῦ θανάτου κήρυκας κόρακας, Where the
resemblance will be better seen if we remember the modern
pronunciation ; μᾶλλον παιδείας χάριν ἢ παιδιᾶς γέγραφα : and
of descending to Hades by way of Taenarum it is said, ἐς μόρον
ἀπὸ Mapas ἥξεις---Μῶρα being the form in which the name
Morea is regularly found in this composition. But far more
frequently they are parodies of names of persons. Sometimes
these are intended to suggest a name, which for some reason is
suppressed, like those of Palaeologus and Psellus in Timarion;
this was no doubt instantly recognizable by contemporaries, and
the resemblance is close enough for us at the present day to be
able to make a shrewd guess at it. Thus τοὺς διαβεβοημένους

* Vera Historia, ii. 3.

BYZANTINE SATIRE. 267

ἁγίους καὶ κατ᾽ ἀντίφρασιν EavOovs trrov?.ovs (‘blonde hypo-
erites’) can hardly fail to mean persons called Xanthopoulus ;
similarly ὁ ἀοιδὸς Πῶλος ᾿Αργυρός will be Argyropoulus; and
᾿Ονοκέντιος, which is shown to stand for a Western name by ὁ
κατὰ Λατίνους being appended to it, seems to be an uncompli-
mentary rendering of Inuocentius or perhaps Vincentius. The
rest, where the real name is given, take the form of epithets or
descriptions, in a few instances complimentary, as τὴν ἄντικρυς
id 5 5» fal / > / =

ὡς ἐξ ἀνατολῆς λάμπουσαν, ᾿Ανατολικήν, but much more
commonly opprobrious, for the purpose of ridiculing or flinging
imputations at persons whom the author disliked. Such are—
ε \ να , \ > , » ,
ὁ τὰς αἶγας πρότερον Μελγουσὴς ἀμέλγων---ἄσοφος Σοφιανός
—as ἀσπὶς βύων τὰ ὦτα, ἐκεῖνος ὁ ᾿Ασπιέταος, ὁ λόγοις μὲν
ἡδυεπὴς, ἔργοις 8 ὥσπερ ἀσπὶς δάκνων---τοῦ τὰς αἰσθήσεις
μεμυκότος Καμύτζη---ὁ ἐκ Ἰ]ατροκλέους ἀφικόμενος ᾿Αλουσιάνος,
with an allusion to Aristophanes’ Plutus (84)—

---ἐκ Πατροκλέους ἔρχομαι,
a ’ 3 , pak | “ 3 ’ὔ
ὃς οὐκ ἐλούσατ᾽ ἐξ ὅτουπερ ἐγένετο---

--λούκιος, ἢ ὄνος, referring to Lucian’s composition with that
title. Some of these are amusing, some far-fetched, others
contemptible; but this matters not to the writer, who cares
little what his missile is, as long as he has something to throw.
It is noticeable, what an intimate acquaintance with the classics
he expects from his readers.

The foregoing remarks will have given some idea of the nature
of the satire contained in this piece. It is coarse, unrestrained,
and merciless. Here and there a really witty expression occurs,
such as ‘a ferryman of words’ for ‘an interpreter’ (διαπορθμεὺς
λόγων καὶ μηνυμάτων Λατίνων καὶ Γραικῶν), though possibly
the idea here is borrowed from Plato, who uses διαπορθμεύω in
the sense of ‘to interpret’ :1 yet, on the whole, it is the reckless-
ness of expression, the bold caricature of contemporary characters,
the burlesque humour that pervades it, and the drollery of the
whole thing, which forms a sort of literary masquerade, that
cause it to be amusing. No point is spared that leaves an
opening for attack. At one time it is a man’s ignoble origin,
at another his personal defects or peculiarities—a halting gait, or

1 Plato, Sympos. Ὁ. 202 E.

268 BYZANTINE SATIRE.

coppery-leaden complexion (μολυβδοχαλκόχρωον Maynrav
ἐκεῖνον). The medical profession, in particular, comes in for
much severer treatment than in ‘Timarion.’. A common ex-
pression for them is ‘manslayers’ (βροτολοιγοί), and Pepago-
menus, the court physician, is actually charged with having
administered poison instead of medicine. Similar imputations
are made on others, not without malicious puns—tod κερβέρου
Κωνώνη, τοῦ ἀντ᾽ ἀλεξιτηρίου κώνειον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις παρεχο-
μένου, καὶ τοῦ ῥᾳδίως καὶ ἀναιμωτὶ πρὸς Χάρωνα τοὺς πονηρῶς
ἔχοντας προοδοποιουμένου Χαρσιανίταο. The power οἵ vitu-
peration which the author possesses is something surprising.
The following epithets and depreciative expressions may be
taken as specimens—fdeduyylas, λωποδύτης, μιαιφόνος, παρά-
ANPOS, κατάπτυστος, ἐπάρατος, παλαμναῖος, ἀλιτήριος, ἐμβρόν-
τητος, ἰαπετός, βεκκεσέληνος, καταγεγαυρωμένος, ἐκκεκωφω-
μένος, κολοιόφθαλμος φώρ, Αἰθίοπος μελάντερος, ἐξ ἀγγέλων
πονηρῶν ἀπόγονος : and sometimes the fuel of political and
religious controversy is thrown in, as in λατινόφρων, ‘ partisan of
the Latins,’ συμβολομάχος, ‘impugner of the faith, ζιζανίων
σπορεύς, It will easily be believed that there are others of a
character far from delicate. But this abusiveness was suited to
the times; indeed, if the language which Mazaris puts into the
mouths of his characters at all represents the reality, the conver-
sation of the inmates of the court of Constantinople at that
period must have been of the coarsest description, and the facility
with which, in addressing one another, they pass from ἄριστε
φίλων to μάταιε, κάκιστε, μνησίκακε, and so forth, implies a
total absence of mutual respect.

Still, notwithstanding his personal enmities and love of
detraction, the author of this narrative had a serious object in
view. More than once he declares that he writes more in
earnest than in jest (σπουδάζων μᾶλλον ἢ παίζων). He seems
to have been awake to the evils of his time, especially to the
incontinence of the upper classes and the monks, and to the
corrupt administration of justice. In respect of this latter point,
which presented the greatest danger—for throughout the long
history of the Byzantine empire nothing had so much tended to
hold its subjects together, and reconcile them to oppressive
taxation, as the impartiality of the law-courts—a strong contrast
is drawn between the verdicts in the world below, which are

BYZANTINE SATIRE. 269

given δικαίως καὶ ἀπροσωπολήπτως, ETL δὲ ἀδωροδοκήτως, and
those amongst the living, where personal influence prevailed, and
the judges took bribes from both sides, so that justice was in the
hands of the powerful and the wealthy. But the primary aim
that Mazaris had in view was to support the Emperor Manuel,
for whom he manifests a sincere respect, in the political reforms
which he was attempting to introduce. These came too late for
it to be possible for them to save the expiring state, but they
were well intended, and the fact that the writer approved them
shows that he belonged to the few who still cherished a feeling
of patriotism. The opposition offered to these measures by
the inhabitants of Peloponnesus was, as we have seen, the cause
of the extreme bitterness with which he satirizes them.

The state of the dead which is here described, and the theology,
so to speak, of the lower world, have as little consistency as any
other part of the composition, One thing is agreed upon,
namely, that the loss of the good things of this life is the greatest
of all trials, and consequently the punishment which Lucian
assigns to the rich man, that he should not be allowed to drink
the water of Lethe, but should continue to remember his former
enjoyments,! is here brought prominently forward. But though
the righteous are distinguished in their appearance from the
wicked, little or nothing is said on the subject of future happiness,
and when a catalogue of punishments is given, Scriptural and
Pagan expressions are inserted alternately. So, too, while God
is conceived of as the ruler of the universe, Pluto, Persephone
and Hermes are the governors in Hades, and in one passage the
one and the others are invoked in successive sentences. But the
greatest surprise is at the end, when, after the mention of all
this classical apparatus, we are suddenly reminded that the last
trumpet has yet to sound (μέχρις ἂν τῆς τελευταίας ἐκείνης
ἀκούσειας σάλπιγγος). Perhaps the incongruity of all this 15 not
greater than what is found in Dante’s Inferno, only in that case
the skill of the poet is shown in his reconciling us to it.

The two satires which we have thus examined may serve, I
think, as a proof that an amusing element was not wanting in

1 Lucian, Cataplus, 28, 29.

270 BYZANTINE SATIRE.

Byzantine literature. At first sight each of them, and particu-
larly the latter, seems like a phenomenon in its age; indeed it
would be hard to conceive a stronger contrast with the pedantry
and solemnity which we usually associate with the court cere-
monial of Constantinople, than is found in ‘ Mazaris.’ Still more
surprising is it, if we compare these descriptions of visits to the
lower world with such a mediaeval Greek story as ‘The Apoca-
lypse of the Virgin’—a narrative, full of horrors, of the descent
of the Virgin into Hell under the guidance of the Archangel
Michael, of which M. Gidel has given an account in his Nowvelles
Etudes sur la Littérature grecque moderne (pp. 313-330), and
M. Polites a Modern-Greek translation in his Νεοελληνικὴ
Μυθολογία (vol. i. pp. 375—389)—to think that the same state
of society should have produced both. At the same time we
know that ‘Timarion’ and ‘ Mazaris,’ though the only published
specimens of these satirical compositions, are not the only existing
ones; and those that have come down to us are not improbably
the remains of what was once an extensive literature. Under
the uniform surface, and the hard crust of custom, with which
the life of the Eastern Empire was overlaid, there would seem
to have been more variety than is generally imagined.

H. F. Tozer.

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 271

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF SOUTHERN
AEOLIS.

(Continued from page 54).

Part IJ.—Myrina, Larissa, NEONTEICHOS, TEMNOS, AND
AEGAE,

Asta MIvnor, interposed like a bridge between Europe and
Asia, has been from time immemorial a battlefield between the
Eastern and Western races. Across this bridge the arts, civili-
sation, and religion of the East had passed into Greece; and
back over the same bridge they strove to pass beautified and
elevated from Greece into Asia. The progress of the world has
had its centre and motive power in the never-ceasing collision of
Hastern and Western thought, which was thus produced in Asia
Minor. One episode in the long conflict has been chosen by
Herodotus as the subject of his prose epic: but the struggle did
not stop at the point he thought. It has not yet ended, though
it has long ceased to be of central importance in the world’s
history. For centuries after he wrote Greek influence continued
to spread, unhindered, further and further into Asia: but as the
Roman empire decayed, the East again became the stronger, and
Asia Minor has continued under its undisputed influence almost
up to the present day. Now the tide has again turned, and one
can trace along the western coast the gradual extinction of the
Oriental element. It does not retreat, it is not driven back by
war: it simply dies out by a slow yet sure decay. It is the aim
of this set of papers to throw some light on one stage in this
contest, a stage probably the least known of all, the first attempts
of the Greek element to establish itself in the country round the

272 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

Hermus. Tradition has preserved to us little information about
the first Greek settlements. The customary division into Aeolic,
Tonic, and Doric colonists -is not a sufticient one. Strabo clearly
implies that there was a double Aeolic immigration when he says
(p. 622) that Cyme founded thirty cities, and that it was not
the first Aeolic settlement ; in another passage (p. 582) he makes
the northern colonists proceed by land through Thrace, the
southern direct by sea to Cyme. 1 hope by an examination
of the country and the situations, never as yet determined, of
the minor towns, to add a little to the history of this Southern
Aeolic immigration, in its first burst of prosperity, through the
time when it was almost overwhelmed in the Lydian and Persian
empires and was barely maintained by the strength of the
Athenian confederacy, till it was finally merged in the stronger
tide of Greek influence that set in with the victory of Alexander.
More is known of Myrina, and still more of Cyme, than of any
of the other towns: but both are omitted here, because it may
be expected that considerable light will be thrown on the history
of both by the excavations conducted on their sites by the
French School of Athens. Tull their results are published, it
would be a waste of time to write of either city. The scanty
records of the smaller towns will, however, supplement the
history of the greater ones. Each furnishes something to a
complete knowledge of the Aeolic emigrants: and the following
study of their history will, it is hoped, be the precursor of a full
account of the two greater cities in the Bulletin de Correspondance
hellénique. Myrina will be touched on here only in so far as
a knowledge of its exact site is required to fix those of the other
towns of Aeolis.

Colonel Leake (Asia Minor, p. 270) says, ‘Even the most
accessible parts of the valleys of the Hermus and Caicus, and
of their interjacent ridges, are still very insufficiently explored
a With the exception of Tenimus, we have no accurate
information on the sites of any of the second-rate towns of this
part of Asia Minor.’ The list which he gives of these towns
comprises Leucae, Phocaea, Cyme, Aegae, Myrina, &e., which
shows how great a loss is thus caused to the history of the
Greek settlements in Asia Minor. In the map of Kiepert,
which forms the basis of all our knowledge of this district, a
conjectural situation is given to most of these towns, but the

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 273
map is far from presenting an accurate representation of the
actual state of the country as it now is,! and does not do much
more than repeat the guesses of previous travellers. The
situations of Cyme and Phocaea alone are fixed with certainty.
The site of Temnos is given by Kiepert after Leake, but it is
quite certain that Menemen, where it is placed, is a purely
modern town, and that no ancient city existed there. In these
circumstances no apology is needed for proposing a re-distribution
of the ancient names, so long as the proposal is grounded on
actual observation.

In the following notes my object has not been to record
discoveries of my own, but to attempt to embrace in one view
the ancient sites of Aeolis which I have visited, to show their
position relatively to one another and to the main features of
the country in which they lie, and, working on this basis, to
exhibit in a clearer light the few facts recorded of their history.
A number of the ruined cities that will be mentioned have
not as yet been described, but I have no pretensions to have
discovered them, Most of them have been known by name,
at least to the few persons in the district who take an interest
in such matters; the position of some of them was described to
me by Greeks, of others by Europeans, and in neither case do
I wish that the credit which belongs to the real discoverers
should be assigned to me.? But the ancient names which I
assign to these sites are, in most cases, not those which are
currently apportioned to them, where any names at all are as
yet given them by the local antiquaries; and the views ex-
pressed have been worked out, apart from all modern authorities,
solely from a careful study of the character of the country, and
the references of the ancients. My object in every journey has
been not to look for walls, but to study history. A very slight
fact often gains much meaning when taken in connection with
the local features, and I have tried to understand better some

1 Besides errors alluded to in the
course of this article, I may mention
the course assigned to the Nif Chai, or
river of Nymphio, which really runs
parallel to the Hermus as far as
Magnesia before joining that river.
Numberless errors occur in the accounts
of Aeolis and of Phocaea in such hand-

books as Forbiger, Smith, &c.; and
the only important river between the
Hermus and the Caicus is not marked
in the maps.

* I purposely refrain from ascribing
each discovery to any particular person,
as the honour is often claimed by more
than one.

a

IN es

WVISANDViA

ΠῚ

ΠΡΟΣ ἢ

προ OSS OAS EET EY FETE σὰν ον SRE NETS, GA Oy ee ae τατος A YEAS SEIU Se

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 275

of the earlier steps in a most important historical fact, the
Hellenisation of Western Asia Minor.

A sketch map is given, the object of which is to show the
marked features of the country and no others. The lower
valley of the Hermus is a wide alluvial plain, which the ancients
considered to have been formed by the river and to have been
originally covered by the sea (Strab. p. 621; Ael. Aristid. Aegypt.
p- 351 [468]). On the north it is bounded by the Kara Hassan
Dagh and the Dumanlu Dagh, two higher chains in a moun-
tainous plateau; the latter or a part of it is called Sardene
in a Homeric epigram. On the east the valley is bounded by
Mt. Sipylus (Yamanlir Dagh). The Hermus flows between
these two chains by a narrow pass which leads from the middle
Hermus valley, that of Magnesia, to the lower valley. Fora
mile or two after leaving the Magnesian plain, the river has
barely room to pass between the mountains: this place is named
Boghaz, ‘The Gullet.’ After this the river passes through the
plain of Temnos (as 1 shall call it), which is about four miles
wide and as many in length, till the mountains open and it
enters on the wide lower valley. On the west this lower valley
is bounded by the mountainous Phocaean peninsula, between
which and the Kara Hassan Dagh a narrow valiey extends from
the Hermus plain to the sea at Cyme.

The mountainous plateau which extends between the Hermus,
the sea, and the Caicus, is an unknown land. It is broken on
the west by one valley, that of the river Kodja, on which I have
placed Myrina and Aegae. The only time when I have gone
any distance into the mountains was in visiting Namrit Kalessi,
at the head of the river. Instead of following the river as we
should have done, we went across the mountains over a waste
of rocks and boulders, only once interrupted by a glen, green
and beautiful, deep down among the hills. But there must
be in the plateau many fertile glens in which several of the
thirty cities founded from Cyme perhaps are yet to be dis-
covered. The district is counted very unsafe. It is inhabited
only by Turks, and is therefore dreaded by the Greek people of
the low country ; moreover at present the number of soldiers
that have refused to serve and have taken to the mountains
justifies to some extent its bad name. These mountains do
not extend to the sea. Along the coast there is a strip of level

276 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

country, behind which gradual slopes of broken ground lead up
to the higher mountainous plateau. South of the Kodja there
is no river, only a few water-courses full after rain.

The Phocaean peninsula is of the same character, but the
mountains are not so high and are more broken by glens. The
peninsula would become an island if the sea level were a little
higher; and the narrow valley leading from Cyme to the
Hermus would be a channel of the sea.

East of the Hermus the main feature is the mass of moun-
tains called by the Greeks Sipylus. It is almost entirely isolated
like an island in the plain; only at one point on the south a
link of hills connects it with the main range, which extends
from the interior through Tmolus and Olympus to the sea.
West of this connecting link is the plain of Smyrna, completely
shut in between the sea and the mountains. East is the plain
of Nymphio, opening to the north on the middle Hermus |
valley.

In the scanty notices and traditions of the Aeolic settlement
little is said of the inhabitants whom the Greeks found in the
country. The coast in general was, according to Strabo,
peopled by a Pelasgic race, one of whose chief strongholds
was Larissa in the lower Hermus valley. Further inland was
the empire of the Lydians, ruled by an Oriental dynasty which
had brought with it the cultus of the Babylonian Herakles.
This dynasty seems to have had no liking for the sea, and to
have turned its thoughts wholly to the East; the Greek tradi-
tion preserves no record of any collision with Lydia till a new
dynasty arose connected both in friendship and in enmity with
the Greeks of the coast.

The Greek settlement had its centres in the island of Lesbos,
interposed between Greece and Asia, and the city of Cyme.
The name of Cyme points to the old Euboean city, which was
one of the oldest centres of Hellenic colonisation and commerce,
and which had given way to younger rivals almost before history
begins. ‘Tradition, however, and the common epithet Phry-
konitis point to Mount Phrikion in Locris as the old home of
the colonists. But it is well known that colonising centres did
not send out only their own inhabitants. Emigrants sent forth
by Apollo as a ver sacrum or from some other motive, congre-
gated at the great maritime cities and sailed from them in their

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 277

fleets. From the Asiatic Cyme and from Lesbos this settlement
proceeded, but before trying to trace its course, we must fix the
position of the towns which they founded. In doing so I shall
assume the points that I have tried to establish about the direc-
tion of the Roman road between Smyrna and Pergamus, and
the distances of the several stages. It passed through Larissa,
23 or 24 miles, Cyme 33 miles, Myrina 42 miles, Gryneion about
47 miles, and Elaea 54 miles.

I begin with Myrina, which is placed by Kiepert at Ali Agha.
There is no sign that a Greek city ever existed there, and it is
too near Cyme to suit the distance which has been assigned
between Cyme and Myrina, nine Roman miles. Al Agha is
about four miles north of Cyme, and about four miles further

WALL OF MYRINA.

on one reaches a place called Kalabak Serai, ‘the Mansion of
Kalabak.’* Here at the end of the fertile plain of the Kodja
Chai, ‘ Big River,’ and on its north bank close to the sea, is a
grassy hill about 200 feet high. The sides seem to have been
scarped to make it a little steeper, and above are the remains
of a Hellenic wall. It is built in a transition style common in
this country, generally in horizontal courses, but sometimes the
lines grow irregular and the style becomes almost ‘ Cyclopean.’

1 Kalabak is a village some distance the current explanation of the name,
inland among the mountains. I give which is pronounced Kalabasseri.

278 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

No angle remains, but a number of large square-cut stones
lying at one part of the hill show that the corners were more
carefully and finely built. In the plain of the Kodja we might
expect more than one Aeolic settlement, if it be fully explored.
The river is joined near its mouth by the Kondtiz Chai, ‘ Otter
River,’ a watercourse dry except after rain ; it seems to be the
river marked in Kiepert’s map at Ali Agha and called Kundura
Chai.

On the slope beneath the city and on the neighbouring hills
are thousands of graves. Irregular excavations had long been
made here, and objects thus obtained were common in Smyrna
shops; but fortunately the work was undertaken in a systematic
fashion by the French School of Athens last summer, and still
continues with valuable results. The full account, when pub-
lished in the Bulletin, will doubtless throw much light on the
history of the city. The coins which have been found on this
spot are, I believe, always of Myrina, a fact noticed by Mr.
Pullan (Ruins of Asia Minor, p. 8) in his account of a visit to
this place, which he also recognises as the site of Myrina.

Texier (Asie Mineure, Ὁ. 223) gives the name of the river
that flows by Myrina as Xanthus, but his only authority is
that the name is given on coins of Cyme to a river-god.
But a passage in the historian Agathias leaves no doubt on
the point. In his preface, p. 9, he says that he was born in
Myrina of Aeolis, at the mouth of the river Pythicos, which
flows out of Lydia (ῥέων ἐκ Λυδίας τῆς χώρας x.7.r.). Between
the Hermus and the Caicus there is only one river to which this
description can apply, viz., the Kodja Chai. No other water-
course is long enough to be said to rise in Lydia; in fact there
is no other river along the coast so far as I have seen it, but
merely brooks from the hill-sides and winter torrents. Myrina
therefore was situated at the mouth of the Kodja Chai. The
Xanthus of Cymaean coins is either some brook beside the city, -
or the torrent which runs in a broad deep channel close to
Larissa on the western side of the lower Hermus valley.’
During great part of the year it is dry, and its channel is only
a deep chasm ; but after rain it is an impassable torrent, and as

1 T shall have occasion to speak of it 2 Marked on Kiepert’s large map,
later in connection with the site of but not in the sketch map here given.
Aegae.

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 279

the bridge which once spanned it is now lying in ruins at the
bottom, the traveller who attempts to cross the valley, two feet
or more deep in mud at such a time, has to make a circuit of
several miles to get round it. In the Roman period Larissa was
a mere village, and Cyme possessed the country up to the
Hermus : it is therefore natural that it should on its coins boast
of Xanthus and Hermus as its rivers.

Three ways were open to the Aeolic inhabitants of Cyme to
spread their colonies, along the coast to the south and north,
and straight inland to the Hermus valley: and they seem to
have used all three. The whole Phocaean peninsula originally
belonged to them, till the settlers who came to Phocaea obtained
it from them by agreement (Paus. vil. 3). The boundary between
Cyme and Phocaea was fixed at an intermediate point on the
coast (Stra. p. 647). On the fertile strip of country between New
Phocaea (a town founded in the thirteenth century by the
Genoese for the sake of the rich alum mines) and Cyme we
might look for Cymaean settlements. The antiquities found at
New Phocaea are all Cymaean. Here probably lay the Kyllene
of Xenophon (Cyr. vii.), or the Ascanius portus, which Pliny (v.
32) names between Phocaea and Cyme. But the rest of the
mountainous peninsula had little to tempt them, and they
resigned it to the Phocaeans.

The north road was more tempting, and probably Myrina at
the mouth of its fertile valley was one of their earliest settle-
ments.! Between Cyme and Myrina lay Adae (Stra. 622). From
Myrina the settlement proceeded up the Pythicos valley to Aegae,
to which I shall return later, as well as farther along the coast.
But I have not gone further north than this point. Fatigue
and a snowstorm prevented me, when at Ali Agha in January,
from visiting the site ascribed to Gryneion by Mr. Pullan (/.c.).
It lies a few miles to the north. Elaea also was on the coast, a
little distance south of the Caicus; Strabo says it was twelve
stadia from the river. I turn now to the Hermus valley.

The exact site of Larissa cannot well be considered apart
from that of Neonteichos. The pseudo-Herodotus (Vit. Hom.

1 Jt is almost certain that both _ the Oriental religion of Artemis-Cybele ;
Cyme and Myrina were cities before Myrina is the same word as Smyrna,
the Greeks came. They are Amazon the old name of Ephesos.
cities (Str. p. 628), that is, places of

289 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

9) makes Homer emigrate from Smyrna to Cyme. He comes
to Neonteichos and lives there some time; and the city is
described as at the foot of Mount Sardene, and close to the
river Hermus—

Οἱ πόλιν αἰπεινὴν Κύμης ἐριώπιδα κούρην
Ναίετε, Σαρδήνης πόδα νείατον ὑψικόμοιο,
Ἀμβρόσιον πίνοντες ὕδωρ θείου ποταμοῖο
Ἕρμου δινήεντος, ὃν ἀθάνατος τέκετο Ζεύς.

Thence he goes by Larissa, through which lay the easiest (but
not apparently the shortest) way to Cyme. This testimony is
as valuable for the situation of the towns as it is worthless for
our knowledge of Homer. Strabo (p. 621) puts Larissa 70
stadia, almost nine Roman miles, from Cyme, and 30, almost
four Roman miles, from Neonteichos. It is true that he seems
to make the Hermus flow between Cyme and Larissa (ἀπὸ
Λαρίσης διαβάντι τὸν “Eppoy eis Κύμην ἑβδομήκοντα σταδίους) ;
but this is irreconcilable with the distance he gives, and I think
the sentence is only confusedly expressed and not wrong. He
has just been speaking of Magnesia, and the words διαβάντι
τὸν Ἕρμον refer to the relation between that city and Cyme,
though he has expressed himself so badly that they refer
syntactically to the relation between Larissa and Cyme.! He
also states that Larissa was in the Hermus valley (ποταμό-
χωστον τὴν χώραν), which is confirmed by Aristides (Aegypt.
i. p. 3851). Xenophon twice mentions Larissa (Cyr. vu. 1,
Fivell, πὶ. 1, 7), but little can be learned about its situation
from his words. Pliny (v. 32) places it on the sea between
Phocaea and Cyme, which is clearly wrong. Scylax does not
mention it.

It results from these authorities that Larissa was in the
Hermus valley towards Cyme (περὶ Κύμην, Steph. Byz. and
Xen.), and on the road from Smyrna to Cyme. Nearly four miles
from it was Neonteichos, which lay on the side of a mountain
near the Hermus. On sites exactly fulfilling all these conditions
distinct remains of two Hellenic cities exist. Just where the
valley above described as extending from Cyme to the Hermus

1 Tfind that a German scholar gets place where this emendation has been

the same meaning by transposing the published.
words: I have lost the reference to the

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 281

opens on the lower Hermus valley, the road passes below the
south side of a rocky hill that rises about 200 feet above the
plain. Under the hill is the resting place referred to in
Part I. The hill is not wholly isolated, a low neck connects it
with the mountains to the north; its appearance is exactly
described by its Turkish name Bourounjik, ‘the Little Point.’
On the top of the hill we can trace at intervals a wall 81
feet thick, made of cut stones, with holes for metal clamps.
The ground is strewn with Hellenic pottery; much of it is
clearly of an early period, and I did not observe any that was
late. The top of the hill was too large for the needs of the
inhabitants, and the wall was carried round only the highest
part of it. None of the stones in position rise above the surface
of the hill, but many are scattered over the ground, one of them
showing the peculiar cut corner, which never fails at the angle
of a good Hellenic wall. I measured four successive stones, and
found them respectively 3 feet 3 inches, 1 foot 10 inches, 2 feet
9 inches, 2 feet 6 inches, in length. This is almost certainly the
site of Larissa. Standing on the city hill, one sees between
three and four miles, or thereabouts, to the north-east, a curious
circular rock on the slope of the hills that form the northern
border of the valley, a short distance from the corner where the
hills turn to the north beside the Hermus.t Going across the
valley to this position, which is right above the Turkish village of
Yannik Keui, ‘Burnt Village,’ (not Yeni Keui, ‘ New Village,’ as
Kiepert has it), I found as 1 mounted the gradually sloping hill
a series of beautifully built polygonal walls. The stones are
carefully selected and hewn to fit one another, so that they
produce a perfectly smooth, close, and even surface. These
walls seem made to support a series of terraces. In mounting
to the massive rock which formed the acropolis, we pass from
the polygonal style to regular masonry of squared stones, in the
style of the later Hellenic period. The acropolis was occupied
in the middle ages, and considerable remains of very bad stone
and mortar work mar the beauty of the Greek walls,

Strabo (p. 621) has preserved a fragment of history, which,

1 The corner would correspond ex- dently the important point, both from
actly to the description quoted above its natural strength and from the
from the Life of Homer. But the remains on it, and it is not far from
hill described in the text is evi- the corner.

13) Se =A O a Oe U

282 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

when taken in connection with the position of these cities,
throws some light on the character of the Aeolic settlement.
His account must, however, be corrected in one point by the
authority of the Vita Homert. He makes the foundation of
Cyme later than the conquest of Larissa, whereas it is quite
certain that Cyme was the metropolis of the Aeolic cities,
and the centre from which the conquest spread. After the
Cymaeans had occupied the sea-coast and had begun to turn
their thoughts towards the interior, the path of conquest was
clearly marked out for them by nature. To the south lay the
mountainous Phocaean peninsula, to the north the sterile
mountains that separate the Hermus from the Caicus and the
sea; between them lay the narrow but easy way that led to
the fertile Hermus valley. But just at the entrance to the
Hermus plain, the old Pelasgic city of Larissa blocked the
way. The Cymaeans attacked it indirectly. Passing along
the mountains, they built on the northern edge of the valley
the stronghold of Neonteichos, whence they could command
the whole valley. The struggle ended, here as elsewhere, in the
victory of the new race. Larissa became a Greek town, but
does not appear to have been a very flourishing settlement. It
is mentioned by Herodotus as one of the eleven Aeolic cities
and we may therefore conclude that it, with the others, joined
the Ionic league against Cyrus (Herod. 1.151). Xenophon (Cyr.
vil. 1) says that Cyrus settled in it some Egyptian mercenaries,
and that it was known as the Egyptian Larissa. It does not
appear in the lists of contributions to the Delian confederacy :
but in the Athenian decree of the year 425 B.c., when the rate
was raised to two and even three times the previous amount,
Larissa is mentioned. Many places occur in that decree which
are not mentioned in the regular lists. Some of these probably
were formerly included in the rating of more important neigh-
bours ; but this can hardly have been the case with Larissa, the
strongest city of the district (Xen. Hell. 11.1, 7). Either it was
an independent ally like Chios paying no tribute ; or else it was
included from mere bravado, all states on the Aegean being rated
whether or not there were any chance of their paying. It must
however be remembered that the interpretation of AEP on the
record is doubtful. Λήρισσαι is a form natural in the Ionic of
“Herodotus, or in an Tonic city like the Larissa near Ephesus;

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 283

but an Aecolie city would be more likely to call itself Λάρισσα.
The neighbouring city is Τῆμνος in Herodotus, Τῶμνος on coins,

After the end of the Peloponnesian war, Thimbron led a Spartan
army into this district. Other towns surrendered to him, but
Larissa, a stronger city, resisted bravely. Thimbron surrounded
it, assaulted it both by direct attacks and by a mine, but was
finally repulsed and obliged to retire. The description of the
siege (Xen. Hell. iii. 1) affords incidental confirmation of the site
assigned to the city. Mining would be an impossible mode of
attack on most other cities of the district, but could be well
applied from the north against Larissa. On that side a con-
siderable part of the hill is left out of the city wall. When
Alexander set the Greek cities free, Larissa began to coin
money. Only copper coins are known}: the type is on the
obverse a female head with a wreath, on the reverse a
horseman. The latter emblem is appropriate to a city of the
plain. But we do not find here a continuous and growing
coinage such as is found at Temnos; and it is clear that the
city declined. Strabo and Pliny both say that it was deserted
in their time (ἐρήμη δ᾽ ἐστὶ νῦν, Str. p. 621). If they refer to
the city on the hill, this may probably be true. But it is certain
from Aristides that there was at least a village still called by
this name, and that it lay on the road, and probably therefore
in the plain. On the road to Cyme may still be seen evident
proofs in the walls and cemetery near, that the place was
inhabited in late Roman time. The reason of its decline must
be sought at Neonteichos.

Of the history of Neonteichos hardly anything is known.
Tt is clear from the remains that it continued to be a fortress
through the Greek and Roman periods down to a very late date.
Some copper coins of the periods of the Diadochi exist, which
were struck at this town. They bear a head of Pallas on the
obverse, and an owl on the reverse with the monogram Ni.
The fortifications of the city also belong to this period. The
reason for the decline of Larissa, and the prosperity of Neon-
teichos, must lie in their political relations. Now, whereas the
coins of Larissa are native in type, and of so fine a style that

1 The references to the coins have 1655 to give assistance has done a great
profited by the criticisms of Professor deal to make my work less defective
Perey Gardner, whose invariable readi- than it would otherwise he.

U 2

284 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

they cannot be later than the middle of the third century, those
of Neonteichos are of the type struck under the mild Perga-
menian rule in Aegae, Myrina, Erythrae, and perhaps in many
other places that have escaped my notice. They bear the head
of the Pergamenian Pallas Nikephoros, with the round close-
fitting Attic helmet. It can be proved that the: coins at
Erythrae are later than those where Pallas wears the Vorinthian
helmet, and the only period open to place them in is B.c. 190-33,
when the kings of Pergamus ruled there. It is well known
that the coimage of Cistophori was originated over their whole
dominions by these kings to promote the unity of their empire ;
the great cities coined the Cistophori with the city mark on them.
But it has not yet been observed that there was also an attempt
to promote uniformity in the copper currency: and I think that
one who compares the set of coins with this head of Pallas, as
struck in Pergamus, Aegae, Myrina, Neonteichos, Erythrae,
must acknowledge that they all belong to one period and one
influence, viz., the Pergamenian rule from 190 to 133. On the
other hand, the head of Pallas with Corinthian helmet in the
Tonian and Aeolic cities belongs to the time of Syrian influence,
as can proved with perfect certainty from the coincidence of
names on Erythraean coins and inscriptions. Neonteichos there-
fore flourished under the kings of Pergamus, while Larissa
decayed: and it becomes a matter of certainty that the latter
chose, like Phocaea, the Syrian side in preference to the Roman
and Pergamenian alliance, and was studiously discouraged by
Pergamus when victorious. Its walls are so completely levelled
with the ground, and yet were so massive, as to suggest the
thought that the city stood a new siege with worse fortune than
in the time of Thimbron, that it was finally, like Phocaea,
captured by the Romans, and that, having no common friend
like Massilia to intercede with the conquerors, it suffered the
fate from which Phocaea barely escaped, and had its fortifica-
tions completely destroyed.

It is possible to attain comparative certainty about the site
of Larissa and Neonteichos. The case is different with Temnos,
and still more with Aegae. Strabo describes these towns
together, saying that they lie on the mountains which overlook
the country of the Cymaeans and of the Phocaeans and of the
Smyrnaeans, and along which flows the Hermus. He is

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 285

evidently describing the mountains between the Hermus, the
Caicus, and the sea. He adds that the towns are not far distant
from Magnesia. Pausanias also (v. 13) declares expressly
that Temnos lay across the Hermus looking from Magnesia,
We may also gather from Strabo that Aegae was north of
Temnos, for he enumerates the cities in order; Aegae and
Temnos are on the mountains that border the Hermus, and not
far from Magnesia. From Magnesia, crossing the Hermus, the
road passes by Larissa to Cyme, Myrina, Gryneion, and Elaea.
Scylax (c. 98) mentions Aegae as a Greek city in the interior
above Cyme, but does not allude to Tenmos. Xenophon
mentions them together (Hell. iv. 8, 5), implying that they
maintained themselves in independence of the Persians. Now
as they are not mentioned among the contributors to the Delian
Fund, they seem not to have belonged to the confederacy, but
to have been mountain cities which maintained themselves
between Athenians and Persians. Pliny also (vy. 32) mentions
Aegae as in the interior. Plutarch (Vit. Zhemst. 26) says that
Themistocles, when he reached Cyme in his flight, found that
the inhabitants of the sea-coast were anxious to claim the
reward ottered by the Persian king for his capture, and there-
fore he fled to Aegae, Αἰολικὸν πολισμάτιον. This account
implies that it was an inland town.?

While these authorities seem to place Aegae on the eastern
side of the mountains, other authors refer it to the western side.
Stephanus of Byzantium speaks of the city as ἡ ἐν Μυρίνῃ ἐν
τῇ Αἰολίδι. Herodotus in his enumeration of the Acolic cities
gives first Cyme, Larissa, Neonteichos, and Teninos: then a
group of unknown places, Killa, Notion, Aigiroessa: then
Pitane, north of the Caicus: finally Αὐγαῖαι (which must be the
town called by other authors Aegae), Myrina, and Gryneion.
The enumeration is certainly given after some order, though
our ignorance about three of the cities makes it difficult to
understand the plan?; it seems, however, that Aegae is regarded
in connexion with Myrina, and apart from Temnos. Probably

ΤΙ have not the opportunity of the Troad which Herodotus expressly
consulting Galen, De Bon. Mal. Succ. excludes from the sphere of the Aeolic
Cib, quoted by Raoul Rochette, Hist. cities. It and the other three are
Col. Grecq. iii, 41, towns of the mainland that disappeared

* Killa can hardly be the town οἵ early.

286 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

the solution of the difficulty lies in the fact that Aegae was in the
heart of the mountains, and might be grouped in connection with
either side according to the fancy of the writer. Temnos was
not far from the Hermus, which is frequently represented on its
coins. Aegae on the other hand was beside a river, Titnaios,}
mentioned several times on its coins, whereas the Hermus does
not occur on them. It may therefore be inferred with much
probability that its territory did not extend to the Hermus, as
every city which has the slightest connexion with that river
claims it on its coins, Smyrna, Phocaea,? Cyme, Temnos, Mag-
nesia, Sardis, ἕο. On the Peutinger Table, Temnos is mentioned
on the road between Smyrna and Cyme. This cannot be
reconciled with the authorities above quoted, unless we suppose
that the Table does not necessarily suppose the town to be
actually on the road but only near it. The Table places Ana-
gome on the road between Smyrna and Hphesus, and Lebas
(Voy. arch. iii. No. 6) is put to great straits in trying to find
a place for it, and does not, I think, finally succeed in showing
that it lay on the road. Pliny (v. 32) places Temnos in con-
nexion with the mouth of the Hermus. In Sinith’s Dictionary
of Ancient Geography the distance from Cyme to Temnos is
given as 30 miles, but no authority is quoted, and it would not
be easy to find a site agreeing with the other authorities and
satisfying this condition of distance.*

The situations which would best suit the statements quoted
are these: Temnos would lie on the hill-side above the right
bank of the Hermus, a little way above the poimt where the
river enters on the lower valley in which hes Larissa. Here it
would be only a few miles from the road between Smyrna and
Cyme. The passages referred to in Strabo and Aristides slow
that the ancients thought the plain had once been sea, so that

Dicticnary has merely followed For-
biger blind'y. Forbiger also gives
no authority. He probably follows
the, Peutinger Table, which places

1 The readings given in Mionnet are
TITHAIOS, MITNAIOS, TITNAICS. ΤΕ
is obvious that the first two are false
readings of the third.

2 A river god is also common on
imperial coins of Phocaea, ‘The name
is not given, so far as I know, but
it can hardly be any other than the
Hermus.

81 find that the writer in the

XXXIII. between the names of Cyme
and Temnos. Now this must certainly
be the complete distance between Cyme
and Smyrna, and Temnos is not to be
counted as a station,

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS, 287

Pliny might well have thought that Temnos originally stood
near the sea. Aegae then we should suppose to lie north-west
among the mountains and further away from the Hermus.

At the railway station of Emir Aalém, 4: miles beyond
Menemen and seventeen miles from Magnesia, one may see on
the hill-side across the river a circular mass of rock very similar to
that on which Neonteichos is situated. It looks quite close, but
unless at a very hurried pace, one requires two hours and a half

= as
Sei SHES
+ —< -- »

WALL OF TEMNOS.

to reach it. It lies above the Turkish villages Hassin Agha
x ᾿ - 5) Felis (G Ἂ,
and Deré Keui, ‘ Village of the Pass.’ We climbed from the
east side a grassy hill (which had once been terraced) till we
reached the rock, which is of conglomerate, and rises on this
side 50 feet perpendicular, though on other sides it is more
accessible. Just where we reached the rock is a natural cavity
or niche with six or seven little rudely-cut votive niches, square
and oblong, on the cliff beside. On the summit of the rock,

288 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

which is of considerable extent, was an ancient acropolis, sur-
rounded with walls on the more approachable sides. The walls
have been much destroyed, but the style seemed to be like that
at Myrina, or that of which a drawing is given in the Journal
of Hellenic Studies, vol. i. p. 65. The acropolis rock supports
a grass-erown platform, and in several places where the rock did
not afford a continuous basis, walls of fine polygonal work were
built as supports.

I could distinguish on the highest platform of the hill
an outer or city wall and a citadel; the same distinction may
be observed on many Aeolic sites, and, as here, the citadel is
often little more than natural rock. Everything about this
part of the city seemed, like the style of its fortifications, to
show that it had been in use only at an early period. It is an
inconvenient place, and was certainly not used in the late
Hellenic or the Roman period. But the hills behind, and to
the east of the acropolis hill, are strewn with remains of
buildings. We wandered for two hours among them, and our
guide said that they extended without interruption and: in
the same fashion for three or four miles along the hills till one
caine opposite to Giaour Keui, ‘ Infidel Village,’ the next station
on the line. We did not see any marble, only the stone of
which the mountains here are composed, a whitish trachyte.

Among the many ruins, we were struck most of all by the
remains of a temple just behind the acropolis hill. We saw
one drum of a column, about two feet in diameter, with un-
finished flutings, twenty in number, and made careful copies
of the mouldings that could be seen. A crowbar might have
revealed much more, by enabling us to move the large blocks

Lye

of stoue, enormous heaps of Which were scattered about. In
one place below these heaps we could tiace the line of the wall
to which they belonged.

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 289

A small semicircular basis in situ formed the pedestal of a
half-column with twelve flutings. It seemed to form the end of
one of the inside walls of the temple. The pedestal moulding
is given in Fig. 1. Two mouldings from the entablature are
given in Figs 2 and 3. Near the same place were several

(2)

octagonal bases, one apparently im situ; each had two little
holes sunk in the top (See Fig. 4.) Further away were a

(4)

number of large cut stones, varying in size, but all in one
or other of the forms in Figs. 5,6,7. Their use I could not

(5)

conjecture. Sonie of them seemed pierced as if to form part
of a watercourse; others of similar shape were solid. Near
them was a fragment with a moulding, Fig. 8.1

' Some of these remains seem By- continued into that period.
zautine in style; the city certainly

290 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

Considering the great extent to which the city extends,
it must be identified with some of the cities mentioned in
history; and if so, it can be no other than Temnos, The

(8)

slopes of the hills around seem well calculated to make it
famous for wine, and justify its making the bunch of grapes
the chief symbol on its coins. A few years ago there was some
prospect that some of the stones would be used for the railway
works; but a more suitable quarry was found. Had the site
been thus opened up a little, it is probable that much more
would now be known about it, and that inscriptions would
have been found. Were a school of archaeology established
at Smyrna, it might do much at very small expense in clearing
up the history of such sites. More famous cities often disappoint
their excavators; sometimes they are so deeply covered that
excavation is a hopelessly expensive task; at other times their
situation has made them a quarry for the buildings of centuries.
Thus Clazomenae has disappeared; and Erythrae has been in
some decree carried away to build the quay of Smyrna. In the
latter case this has been a great gain to archaeology, as many
inscriptions, some of the highest interest, have been thereby
recovered, and by the care of the Smyrna Museum preserved,
But there are many sites where 50/. or 100/., used with the

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 291

eare and tact which only an institution permanently situated in
the country can apply, would yield very valuable results, That
which is needed is the permanent attention of a small staff,
who are able to use the opportunities that from time to time
present themselves. The excavations conducted by the French
School of Athens, all at a very slight expense, are striking
examples of what can be done by a judicious use of oppor-
tunities. I have more than once had occasion to admire the
style in which their excavations at Myrina are conducted.

Temnos, or, as its inhabitants called it, Tamnos, plays a very
small part in history, though its importance is proved both by
the size of its ruins and by its considerable coinage. The
passage quoted above from Xenophon shows that it maintained
its independence from the Persian rule at the opening of the
fourth century B.C. ; but its name is hardly mentioned afterwards.
Miiller assigns to it a number of coins of Lysimachus and
Alexander. If this be so, it must have been a city of con-
siderable importance early in the third and early in the second
century, to which two periods the coms belong. Silver autonomous
coins of the city occur belonging to this period; but not in
such abundance as to account for the number of regal coins
attributed to it. As time goes on the copper coinage in-
creases in consequence. We gather from it the strong
influence exercised by the worship of the Mater Sipylene,
whose seat, Mount Sipylus, was full in view across the river.
We see also that Asclepios had been brought here, probably
from Pergamos, as he was to Smyrna. The type of Heracles
brings to mind the town of Heraclea, which, as will be proved
below, was just across the Hermus. The gods whose worship
we should most expect, and who were probably the chief
gods that the Aeolian settlers brought with them, appear
in various types, especially Zeus as Akraios and with eagle
and thunderbolt.

We learn something about the state of Temnos under the
Romans from the speech of Cicero pro Flacco. One of the chief
witnesses against Flaccus was a certain Heracleides of Temnos,
who had purchased a farm in the territory of Cyme, that is in
the lower Hermus valley, quite near Temnos. The magistrates
of the city mentioned are the five praetors, στρατηγοί, the three
quaestors, ταμίαι, and the four mensaril, τραπεζῖται. Strategi

292 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

under the Roman rule were not military magistrates, their
duties were purely civil, and frequently resembled those of
police officers. The difference between trapezitae and tamiae is
not known; they were both officers of the finance department.
It is worth noticing finally that Temnos is one of those towns
whose coins show the portrait of a proconsul ruling the province.
Mommsen (Zeiéschr. 7. Numism. u. p. 69: cf. 295) thinks that
these coins all date 6-4 B.c., when Augustus wished to make
the share of the Senate in governing the empire a reality.
Those of Temnos bear the name and face of Asinius Gallus
(see also Rev. Numism. 1867, p. 102).

Aegae, as has been said, is probably to be looked for more
among the mountains to the north-west. In January I visited,
along with M. Baltazzi of Ali Agha and M. Reinach of the
School of Athens, a site of which I had often heard, but of
which nothing was known. One English friend, whose love of
sport and adventure has given him a very wide knowledge of
the country, had visited it, but his account was more calculated
to excite than to satisfy curiosity. It was the headquarters of
a noted band of brigands, who found in it more comfortable
quarters than ina common Turkish house. Last year, however,
the chief of this band made his peace with the Government,
and became a policeman; he then went into town, though the

D Ε

8.

change in his abode was more marked than the change in his
occupation. As the place has still a bad reputation, we took
with us afew men to display guns. The town lies on a hill
near the head of the Kedja Chai, about five hours from its mouth,

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 293

where we have placed Myrina. It is surrounded by a wall which
runs along the brow of a hill about 500 or 600 feet above the
river, and incloses space for a town of fair size. As we ascende«
the hill we passed a number of sarcophagi of the Roman period,
which had been exposed in the occasional efforts of the natives to
dig up money. We entered bya gateway, 6 feet 9 inches wide.
The plan is given in the accompanying sketch. The walls on
each side are of different character. A B is like the wall of
Myrina above described. D # is made of small slabs, not
more than two inches thick; the difference is doubtless due to
a layer of schist being handy at this point, for the wall D #
returns some distance on to the style of AB. The corner D
is carefully built with squared stones, showing the usual Hellenic
cutting. Soon after entering, we came to a set of vaulted
caves very rudely cut in the rocky ground, and of great size.
We then found what seemed like a narrow paved street, along
which we passed till we reached the ruins of a small Doric
temple with not one stone still standing on another. It was
built of the same reddish trachyte that is used for most other
buildings on the hill. Numbers of slabs of the frieze were
scattered about: from one I obtained the following measure-
ments on a vertical line in the middle of the metope and on
a horizontal line across from one triglyph to another. The
metopes were perfectly plain, except that the top projected
a little in two degrees of elevation.

ta
i
Ϊ
Ε
2in Zia.
δ tN 1S Ἶ Lida le Gs Won
ε ented yas ie

Immediately beyond this we found a very singular building.
A very finely-built wall, in some places still 50 feet high, and at
least 250 feet in length, stood near the steep slope of the hill.
It was 2 feet 11 inches thick. About three or four feet above
the ground were a series of doors and windows. Each door led

294 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

into a chamber 14 feet square, and each chamber had one of the
windows. Some of the chamber walls were still about 12 feet
high, but nothing remained to show how high they were
originally, or what was above them. At a height of about
30 feet was a series of smaller windows, one to every two doors
beneath, and above each was a projecting slab. At a height of
about 40 feet were larger windows, only one of which remained.
The wall was built in courses, 1 foot 3 inches high, except about
the windows, where one course was smaller. Each course con-
sisted of a long and a short stone alternately, the short one
being probably laid crosswise. The doors and windows were
constructed in the Greek style, converging slightly towards the
top. The lower windows measured 3 feet 7 inches high, 3 feet
3 inches broad at top, 3 feet 6 inches broad at bottom. The
doors were about 7 feet high, and 3 feet broad in the middle.
The doors were raised a little above the ground, and must have
been approached by steps. The whole building had thus a look
of military regularity. It is not of an early period, and probably
belongs to the Pergamenian rule.

At different places we also saw a long gallery, arched and of
the Roman period, and a mediaeval tower.

These ruins are about six hours north-east of Ali Agha, and
are said to be about the same distance north-west of the site
where we have placed Temnos. They are now called Namrit
Kalessi, ‘the Castle of Nimrod.’ Kiepert puts this name on his
map much too far north, and places here the ancient Parthenion.
The account given by Xenophon of his marches (Anab, vii. 8)
seems to show that Parthenion was nearer the Caicus valley
then the site of Namrit Kalessi. The latter is in Aeolis rather
than in Mysia, and it seems connected rather with the Aeolic
cities than with Pergamos, judging from the coins found there.
We found on the site an autonomous copper coin of Phocaea,

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 295

and the day after we returned to Ali Agha a native brought
seven coins, found, as he said, at Namrat Kalessi. Of these, two
belonged to Temnos, four to Aegae, and one was Byzantine.
The only argument, so far as I know, against placing Aegae
here is the statement of Scylax (c. 98) that Aegae lay ὑπὲρ
Κύμης. But it is not unnatural that Scylax should speak
rather vaguely about the situation of a town in the interior
relative to the coast towns. Though it cannot be considered
certain till other sites on the mountains have been examined,
yet it is highly probable that a place of such strength, dating
from the earliest Greek period, with walls of great circum-
ference considering the period when they were built, and
continuing as a city through the Roman period, is Aegae,
when it satisfies fairly well all the accounts of ancient writers.
Aegae also was an important city in early time, and lasted
through the Roman period: it has a silver coimage, and Mr.
Head (Metrolog. Notes, in Numism. Chron. 1875, p. 293) assigns
to it doubtfully Electrum coins of the period 600—560 B.c.
Kiepert, following several old travellers, places Aegae at
Guzél Hissar, ‘the Beautiful Fortress.’ This town les on the
southern edge of the valley of the Kodja Chai, a very short
way from the site of Myrina. In Kiepert’s map it is placed
much too far south. It is really an hour north-east from Ali Agha
instead of south-east as he places it. Guzél Hissar does not suit
the statements of the ancients. It is not on the mountains, it
is not towards Magnesia, there is no reason to mention it along
with Temnos.! Finally, there is nothing to prove that an ancient
city existed there ; its few inscriptions have come from Myrina.
Namrfit Kaless{f is on the same river at whose mouth we have
seen that Myrina lies. That river we know to have been called
the Pythicos, while the name of the river god on the coins of
Aegae is Titnaios. I think that the hill on which Namrtt
Kalessi is situated is surrounded on two sides by two rivulets
which meet beneath, and one of them may have been called the
Titnaios and have been the sacred stream of the city. The
name Titnaios is perhaps a derivative from Titane or Titanos.
Titanos is the name of a hill in Thessaly on or beside which
stood the town of Asterion, Ἀστέριον Τιτάνοιό τε λευκὰ κάρηνα,

1 M. Baltazzi, who has made a col- me that he could not get any coins
lection of the Aeolic coins, has told οἵ Aegae from Guzél Hissar.

296 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

(11. β. 135). Titane is a city in Achaia, on the summit of a hill,
and was one of the chief seats of the worship of Asclepios. Coins
of Aegae with the type of Asclepios occur as early as Augustus,
but we have so little information about the city, that it is hardly
possible to determine whether this coincidence is of any value.
It is however worthy of note that Pliny (v. 32) speaks of an
Aeolic town Titane at the mouth of a river of the same name.
Of the history of Aegae even less is known than of Temnos.
Its name occurs in various forms: Herodotus (i. 149) has
Αὐγαῖαι, Aiyai is common, Xenophon has Αὐγεῖς. The people
seem to have called themselves Αὐγαεῖς, as AIFAEQN is common
on coins; but AITEAIQN sometimes occurs, also AITEQN
(Mionnet, 11. p. 4, No. 15). It was probably a place of great
strength, as it maintained its independence from the king of
Persia; and the site where it has now been placed fulfils that con-
dition admirably. It suffered in the great earthquake, A.D. 17,
when twelve cities of Asia were destroyed (Tac. An. 11. 47).
Strabo says that Cyme founded thirty cities on the mainland,
most of which were deserted in his time. Though they were
then desolate, it is probable that many of them may yet be
traced by their ruins. Crossing the river from Temnos, I
found about an hour from the river a hill on the top of which
isa large boulder. On it are letters, which led the natives to
dig for treasure beneath.? With some difficulty I discovered
that the stone was used as a boundary between two districts.
On the side turned towards Mount Sipylus were the words

ODIAME
AANA TAS

1 Corrected by some editors to Αἰγαί, of Temnos. Mr. Barkshire of Smyrna
2 Mr. Miihlhausen, engineer of the has informed me by letter since the
Smyrna and Cassaba Railway, told me above was printed that he discovered
of this inscribed stone, and gave mea ___ the site of Temnos in 1877.
guide to the place as well as to the site

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS, 297

Ὄρια Μελανπαγιτῶν, and on the side towards Temnos the word

HPARAE?.
TAN

with a few scratches after, which may perhaps be the remains of
ὄρια. It was easy to see the Black Rock where the Melam-:
pagitae dwelt. About two hours distant, on the slope of Sipylus,
was a remarkable mass of rock whose look showed its name:
the natives told me that there were many ‘old things’ about it.
At the time I had not leisure to go so far. On the side of the
Heracleotae towards the river, the valley is full of remains.
Among them are Byzantine ruins, a church, and pieces of
marble which formed architectural decorations showing crosses
among the carving. Not far from the station of Emir Aalem
is a grass-grown tumulus, and a little beyond it is a hill, with
remains of a small fortified town. The walls could be traced all
round the hill, sometimes appearing above the ground, sometimes
showing only a slight elevation in the grassy hill. The style of
building was not apparent; but was certainly not the finer kind
of Greek work. At each end of the oval-shaped town was a
gateway with a winding road distinctly traceable. Half a mile
away on another small grassy hill was a mass of rock, in the south
side of which was cut a staircase that wound up the side. It was
broken in the middle, and part of it was visible in a fallen lump
of rock that lay near. It was clear that the staircase once
furnished the sole means of access, though now-one can easily
ascend the broken side. On the top, which was a small level
plateau, were traces of cutting apparently made to give grip to
the stones of a parapet wall, and a large cistern. An oblong hole
in the plateau, 8 feet 6 inches by 6 feet 3 inches, opened into a
much larger square cistern, which was not lined with cement like
most of those I have seen. The hole was in former times
closed by some kind of covering which rested on carefully cut
ledges at the sides of the opening. It is now filled at least a
HW. S.—VOL. IT. Χ

298 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

foot deep with the skulls of sheep, for what reason I could not
learn. We pushed a long stick down as far as it could be forced
among the bones and water, and found that the cistern must
have been at least six feet deep. Comparing this rock with the
rock-acropolis lately discovered above the ‘ Niobe’ near Magnesia,
I had no doubt that it was a stronghold of a pre-Greek race.
In the rocks and hills all about the valley are cut numerous
graves. In one case a large boulder of conglomerate had been
cut into a chamber, in the floor of which was a grave 4 feet 8 inches
long by 2 feet 7 inches broad. The grave and the chamber faced
due east. In the back wall of the chamber, which was very
irregularly cut, were three votive niches. Such niches are
very common in this country, but I have not in any other
case found them ina sepulchre. At Temnos some have been
described: at Phocaea they are very common. JI found ona
hill-side there, within the walls of the ancient city, an oblong
altar cut out of the rock and facing the points of the compass,
near which was a large rock full of such niches; the whole
place reminded me of the altar of Zeus Hypsistos at Athens.
To return to the Hermus valley : another boulder was cut into a
large chest 6 feet 3 inches by 5 feet 4 inches, once covered with
a lid and entered by a little doorway. Inside was a narrow deep

grave the length of the chamber, and two shallow indentations
in the floor. These are the places for the heads of two corpses

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 299

laid on this shelf as on a bed. This grave also lay east and
west, and close to it outside were two graves parallel to its
sides. The whole is remarkably like another rock tomb beside
Old Smyrna, (see Rev. Archéol. 1876, May, p. 322). The nume-
rous other graves are simply oblong holes cut in the flat rock

vido τοὶ by ges

ee

and covered with slabs of stone, sometimes in pairs, sometimes
broad enough to hold two people, sometimes long and narrow.
All that I examined were symmetrically placed—

10 lay N.W. to 8.E.
Nee LO! Se
MMAR Uh to W.

This attention to the direction of the tombs is not a Greek
characteristic. At Phocaea, Myrina, Tanagra, &c., no rule can
be observed. These tombs, then, must belong either to a non-
Greek race, or to Greeks strongly affected by an alien religion.
I could not hear of anything that had been found in the
tombs, some of which had been only recently opened. It is
probable that one grassy hill is full of unopened graves, as
the few which were visible had been covered by two feet of
soil.

We may conclude from the appearance of this valley that
Greek inhabitants succeeded an older race, and were strongly
influenced by the religion of their predecessors. That religion
can be no other than the worship of the Mother Goddess en-
throned on Sipylus, the tutelary deity of Smyrna and of Magnesia.
Temnos, on the other side of the river, also adopted the same
worship, and its coins often bear the two Nemeses, like
those of Smyrna. The attributes and character of the Nemeses
stamp them as Hellenic developments of figures connected with
the same worship. Down even to Phocaea the cultus spread,
and the Heracleotai under the shadow of Sipylus must have
felt 10 much more.

1 Compare Curtius, Beitr. «. Gesch. Kleinasiens, p.18, and Stark, Niobe, p. 414.
x2

300 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

This Heraclea may be the one mentioned by Stephanus as
πόλις πρὸς TH Κυμαίᾳ τῆς Αἰολίδος. It is however more
probable that Stephanus refers to the village on the coast between
Atarneus and Adramyttium, the property of the Mitylenaeans,
which is apparently the Heracleotes tractus of Pliny (v. 32).
In that case we may think of the town of Lydia, πόλις Λυδίας
(Steph. Byz. and Hesych.), after which the magnet was called
Heracleotis. The situation of this town is quite unknown, but
it has been conjectured (see Smith, Dictionary of Ancient
Geography, s. v.) to lie under Mount Sipylus near Magnesia.
This conjectural position would suit the place whose name is
revealed by the boundary-stone: and as this place is east of the
Hermus, it might be called a town of Lydia. Otherwise the
character and situation of both towns point them out as Aeolic
settlements. The inscription is probably not older than 300 B.c. ;
for though that of the Melampagitae might be referred to an
older period, its more archaic forms are probably due to the
bad education of a mountain village, while the Heracleotae of
the plain wrote much better. The two names must be referred
to the same period, when some difficulty about the boundaries
was settled by arbitration or by mutual agreement. But the
names of the two places have probably descended from the time
when the same Aeolians who founded Temnos occupied the
whole valley. It is even probable that they were not content
with the valley, but went right on across the hills. From
Heraclea a road goes over a pass of Sipylus and descends by the
modern village of Yamanlar on the plain of Cordelio, which
borders on the gulf opposite Smyrna. I feel quite certain that
the city on the summit of the hill Ada near Yamanlar, which
was described in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. i. p. 68 ff,
is an Aeolic city. It may have been, as I formerly said,
a city before the Greek period, but half of the wall round
the top of the hill, and the whole chain of wall and towers
that defends the most accessible sides of the hill at a lower
level, are plainly Greek. These parts of the wall are built
like that of Larissa, and show the same peculiar cutting at
the angles which everywhere marks the Aeolic cities. The
walls are all built of carefully cut stones in horizontal
courses, but the ends of the stones are sometimes not cut
perpendicularly.

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 301

The chief interest of this city is its relation to the Aeolic
Smyrna. A glance at the map shows how it lies on the road
from Temnos to the Smyrna valley. Two roads were open to
the Greeks as they pressed on from the Hermus valley to that
of Smyrna. They might go along the shore of the gulf, or
they might go across the mountains from Temnos. Now the
old city of Smyrna is unassailable except from the north: on
all other sides it presents a long and steep ascent; but to the
north it is joined to the hills behind by a neck of land. It is
clear that if the Greeks met with any resistance they must
have occupied the hills to the north, and thence attacked the
town. The analogy of the attack on Larissa may help to prove
that the attack was made here also from a position on the hills
above the town of Smyrna. It seems more probable, therefore,
that the attack came by way of Temnos, and that the old
town on the hill ‘Ada’ is really a half-way station to facilitate
the conquest of Smyrna.

It is unnecessary to argue that the chronology in the Life of
Homer has no value: there the foundation of Smyrna is put
ten years after that of Neonteichos, and eighteen years after
that of Cyme. The little evidence we have combines with
ἃ priori considerations to show that everywhere the <Aeolic
conquest was a slow but thorough one, and that they wou their
way step by step and city by city after a struggle more or
less hard with the natives of the coast. They had to conquer
before they could colonize. Curtius has emphasized the
contrast between the Ionian and Aeolian settlements. The
former amalgamated with the natives: the latter dispossessed
them. The former founded only cities on the coast: Magnesia,
in the Maeander valley above the Ionic Miletus, is expressly
called by Strabo πόλις Αἰολίς, and its inhabitants were
Thessalians dedicated to Apollo, and sent forth by him.
The latter penetrated far inland and founded a land
empire: even Cyme, founded from the great maritime
Euboean city, deserted the sea and turned its whole efforts
inland. A detailed account of the colonization of
Southern Aeolis marks clearly the character of this Aeolic
settlement.

But this character must not be pressed too far. It is clear
that the Aeolic conquest did not interrupt the continuity of the

302 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

history of the district. The cities in general retain their old
names. Cyme and Myrina are Amazon cities; ‘Larissa kept its
old Pelasgic name. Neonteichos is a new foundation and has
a Hellenic name: Aegae is doubtful. Temnos on the other
hand is an old name. 'Temnos is a mountain in Mysia, and the
town of Temenothyrae is ‘the pass over Mount Temnos” With
it we may compare Grimenothyrae, the Mysian equivalent of
Thermopylae : Germa is a common Phrygian and Mysian town
name, ‘the Hot Springs, Sanskrit gharma. Tém-no, or Tamno,
from root tam, to cut, probably means ‘steep’; and the Carian
town Tymnos, with the personal name Tymnes, are probably of
the same family. It is a very common thing for the name of
a mountain to be applied to the town beside it. In Cilicia the
mountain Anazarbos gave its name to the town beneath, also
called Kyinda, and under the empire Caesareia, πρὸς ᾿Αναζάρβῳ.
Assos, for ak-yo-s, ‘the Peak,’ is one of the commonest names,
alone or in compounds, for towns in Asia Minor, and occurs in
Greece in the name Parnassos, ‘the Peak of Parnes’: Parnes is
found also alone as the name of a mountain. Still the probability
is very great that the Aeolic cities were much more purely Greek
than the Ionic: and one might attribute to this fact their back-
wardness as compared with their Jonian rivals. The Hellenic
civilisation was the fine union of many elements, and the most
mixed cities are those to which the development is chiefly due.
The Aeolic cities were never great centres of commerce; they
all followed the Ionic cities in the league against Cyrus, but
only the cities actually on the coast and fully under the Athenian
influence are mentioned in the list of contributors to the Delian
Confederacy ; and we know that Temnos and Aegae maintained
among their mountains a rude sort of Spartan independence of
any foreign rule. Perhaps on this very account excavations on
some of these sites might be all the more instructive about the
earlier stages of Greek life.

- No other cities that I have seen are so like in character as
those of Ada& and Old Smyrna. The position on small and lofty
peaks, the mixture of Greek with Cyclopean masonry in the
city walls, are singularly like in the two cases, and the pottery
found on the sites is almost the same. On both we finda peculiar
kind of tile, different in some respects from the tiles that abound
on every site in the country from the oldest downwards. These

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 803

tiles are decorated on one side with a bluish-black glaze of a
metallic lustre: all kinds of glaze known in Greece are non-
metallic. The other side is plain, and has a projecting flange
along the edge. The shape of a corner fragmeut is here
added. These tiles were evidently made in moulds, and are

of exactly the same size and shape in the two cities. Mr.
Clarke, of the scientific expedition sent out by the American
Archaeological Society, has pointed out to me that these tiles
formed the sima of a temple whose ornamental parts were of
terra cotta instead of marble. The ground walls of the temple
can be traced on the acropolis of Old Smyrna, and it might be
worth while to spend a few pounds in digging round them
in search of any fragments of a temple so ancient and so
interesting.

The early pottery found on the Aeolic sites is usually un-
glazed, pale yellow in the ground colour with bands generally
of a ruddy brown, but occasionally of a very dark hue. The
fragments that lhe on the surface are too small to show the
shape of the vase ; but in excavations on the site described in
this Journal (vol. 1. p. 68 7), 1 found many small broken kylikes
of a shape which, so far as I can learn, is unexampled elsewhere.
Besides these I found fragments similar in colour but much
finer, exactly the same as some early vases I have from Tel-
messos. On the site of Temnos I picked up a fragment of a
vase with black figures on a red ground.

DECORATION OF VASE FROM PHOCAEA.

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 305

Opposite will be found a drawing of a remarkable vase from
Phocaea. It is one of a pair which I bought in Smyrna.
As I was at the time hunting for relics of Erythrae, and had
expressed much disappointment at finding none, the dealer had
- nothing to gain by saying that the vases came from Phocaea,
and may therefore be believed. Moreover, Mr. Pappadopoulos
Kerameus, whose name is familiar to all students of this district
of Asia Minor, told me that he had tried to buy them in
Phocaea, but had been outbidden. The vases are interesting as
perhaps the first published of such an early period from the district.
But apart from this, they surprise by their markedly Oriental
character. Dr. Furtwiingler has told me that the style of the
geometrical ornaments is different from anything in his ex-
perience. The two heads, of which one is on each side of our

SHAPE OF VASE, height 6 in.

vase, recurred to my mind when I saw the two Sphinxes at
Eujuk; and, quite independently, Dr. Furtwingler remarked
that the arrangement of the hair was paralleled only on
these Sphinxes. The slight variation in the two heads, and
especially in the neck ornaments, characterises also the Sphinxes,
although this is hardly perceptible in M. Perrot’s photographs.
Two colours besides the ground hue of the clay are used;
and in every zone of the ornamentation a studied alternation
of the colours is obvious. The top zone consists of a
series of objects, probably fir-cones, alternately crimson and
yellow.

The other vase, which shows the Oriental influence even more
strongly, will be published hereafter.

306 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

On these cities of Aeolis we have found three kinds of walls.
(1) Polygonal walls occur frequently, but they are in every case
used for some purpose where ruder work was sufficient. The
most frequent use to which they are put is to support a terrace.
It can hardly be doubted that the Greeks who settled in Asia
Minor used this style of building in such cases. But where
pure Cyclopean work is used in the wall of a city, as in the
acropolis of Old Smyrna, one may look on it as most probable
that the wall is the work of an older race. The polygonal
walls are rarely rude in style and made of undressed stones ;
the rudest in character is the immense wall which runs across
the entrance to the glen in the pass of Kavakli Deré,! but it is
as singular in position and purpose as it is in style. Generally
the stones are worked enough to make them fit closely, and
they present a surface perfectly straight and level. One can
often trace courses, distinct enough, but not horizontal, for a
little, till the order is disturbed by an unsuitable stone. This
forms a transition to class (2), in which the courses are generally
distinct and horizontal, but occasionally disappear for a little.
Walls of this class generally alter towards angles into class (3),
in which the stones are carefully squared and fitted most
accurately. The front of the stone is not dressed smooth. It
is left rough, and only the sides are cut smooth. At the angles
the corner is carefully and deeply cut, and the rough faces
of the stone projecting a little in front of the corners produce
the well-known form. But the front of the stone is perfectly
flat, and does not, as in the work of later days, project in the
middle with bevelled edges all round. This kind of building
is also common where the wall is exposed and most open to
attack.

I hope at some future time to complete this sketch of
Southern Aeolis by a study of the Aeolic Smyrna. Before
doing so, however, I hope to make some excavations on the site
of Old Smyrna, as I have already done at another site in the
valley. The money for this purpose is supplied by a Fellow of
Pembroke College, Cambridge.

In conclusion, I may express the hope that Professor Jebb’s
wish, expressed in the last number of this Journal, may soon
be realised by the permanent establishment, of an English

1 See Journ. Hell. Stud. vol. i. ‘pp. 68 ff.

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS. 307

School of Archaeolocy. Much, however, might be said in
favour of placing it in Smyrua rather than in Athens, and
while imitating the older French and German institutions,
making a new departure in the style of work. Greece has
plenty of highly educated archaeologists already at work there ;
Asia Minor has only occasional visitors. An English school,
established even on asmall scale, might in fifteen years do a very
great work in Asia Minor. Even at present, when a little more
attention is beginning to be paid to its antiquities, not a month
passes without some new discovery. But if Asia Minor is to be
the special field of a new school, it must be permanently placed
there, able to take advantage of every opportunity. The want
of a good library is a serious drawback, but much might be done
to supply the defect. A library, so selected as to supplement
that of the Evangelical Museum,! would grow quickly if once
established ; and a student could always go to Athens for a few
weeks when necessary, and have the use of excellent libraries
there. Moreover, it might be well to encourage any student
to spend a month or two of each year at some of the great
museums. With the rapid communication now existing, no
long time would be lost in travelling; and in Ionia the months
of July and August, though perfectly healthy, are nct suited for
doing good work. One student would find it too expensive to
travel much in the interior, but two together might at less
expense go with perfect safety all over the country, with two
good Turkish servants. If one or both of the students united
a liking for sport to an interest in archaeology, he would find
it an immense advantage in exploring. Not merely would he
more easily see unfrequented parts, he would also find the
shooting a passport to the society of many useful allies,

W. M. Ramsay.

Note.—Since the preceding pages were written, M. Baltazzi
has published in the Bulletin de Corr. Hell., an inscription on
a rock near Ali Agha: it marks the boundary between Pergamus
and Cyme, and must belong to the third century B.c. In the

1 Without the aid of this libraryand in Asia Minor would. have been spent

the courtesy with which it is placed at —_uselessly.
the disposal of all students, my time

308 HISTORY OF SOUTHERN AEOLIS.

same paper attention is directed to the Pergamenian types on
some coins of Aeolis. It was in studying the coinage of Erythrae
that I first observed the class of coms which I have described
above in connection with Neonteichos. In another number of
the Bulletin will be found M. Reinach’s account of his visit to
Namrit Kalessi.

ACTORS WITH BIRD-MASKS ON VASES. 309

ACTORS WITH BIRD-MASKS ON VASES.

PuLaTE XIV. B represents an unpublished vase of the British
Museum, which originally formed part of the Burgon Collection :
it appears to have been found in Italy in 1835. It is an
oinochoé with black figures on a red panel, and may be assigned
to a period between about 500 and 450 B.c.

A representation upon an amphora published by Gerhard
in his Trinkschalen, Pl. XXX. Figs. 1—8, so evidently relates to
a similar subject, that it is here reproduced for comparison on
the same plate (Fig. A). This picture shows us an auletes
playing upon the double flutes in the presence of two grotesque-
looking figures, apparently human, who are closely draped in
long cloaks, himatia, and to whom his back is turned. That the
heads of these two figures are intended to represent the heads
of some sort of bird is evident from the beak-like conformation
of the features, and by the purple crests which rise vertically
from the crown. Gerhard, in publishing this vase, has for want
of any better explanation described this scene as representing
a parody or a mummery symbolical of a cock-fight. Viewed,
however, in the light of the evidence afforded by the British
Museum vase, this theory seems to me improbable: yet I am
bound to say that I am unable to advance any explanation
which seems entirely satisfactory.

In Fig. B, 1, we see the same auletes playing his flutes beside two
bearded figurés who move with grotesque gestures to the right,
in an attitude as if they were dancing to the accompaniment of
the music ; they wear the same purple crest as the two in Fig. A,
but instead of being encased in himatia, their limbs are left
free, except for the dappled skin of some animal which is knotted
around the body in such a way that the tail hangs down at the
back.

310 ACTORS WITH BIRD-MASKS ON VASES.

The entire body is stippled with small incised marks, which
is the usual method of indicating a rough or hairy surface, and
probably in this case is meant to represent feathers ; at the
knees of each a further small bunch of feathers is attached; the
arms are extended in the action of flying, and upon each arm is
fastened a wing, which would seem to be a broad flat surface
covered with long feathers, and kept im its place by means of
straps. What these wings were made of we cannot tell : probably
wicker would be the most suitable material, in which case the
reference of Peisthetairos in line 797 of the Birds of Aristophanes,
to the career of a certain Diitrephes would be specially appro-
priate. This individual seems to have made a fortune by covering
flasks with wicker, and is therefore said by Peisthetairos to have
made himself πυτιναῖα πτερά, ‘ wicker wings.’

The introduction of the flute-player is quite regular as
indicating the musical element, the indispensable accompaniment
of dramatic representations of this kind. Various passages in
Aristophanes show us that one or more flute-players were always
at hand to assist with the smging. Thus in the Lkklesiazousat,
line 891, a flute-player is requested by the first old woman to
accompany her song on his pipes; in the Lirds it would seem to
have been one of the Chorus who so officiated, for Peisthetairos
says, line 859—

fal e >
Παῦσαι σὺ φυσῶν. Ἡράκλεις, τουτὶ τί ἣν ;

>
τουτὶ μὰ Δί᾽ ἐγὼ. πολλὰ δὴ Kal δείν᾽ ἰδὼν
” ld ’ =z > ,
οὔπω κόρακ᾽ εἶδον ἐμπεφορβιωμένον.

The branches of ivy or vine scattered about in the ground-
work of the scene, with no apparent connection either with each
other or with the figures, are not an uncommon adjunct on
black-figured vases. Whether they are merely the conventional
indication of the locality in which the action takes place, a wood
or garden, or whether they are inserted from the earlier archaic
habit of filling in every available space in a design, seems
uncertain : perhaps, as they most frequently occur in scenes of
a Dionysiac connection, they may bear reference here to the
obviously Dionysiac character of the performance, as emblems
of the god-head.

There is one point to be noticed regarding the technique of
this vase. The inner markings of all the figures are for the most

ACTORS WITH BIRD-MASKS ON VASES. 311

part represented in the usual method, by incised lines, but the
respective surfaces of the skin of the two actors are differently
treated : that of the figure on the right is covered with incised
circles, that of his companion is roughly stippled. Moreover,
the outline of the arms of the former figure is faintly indicated
with a black pigment, that of his companion, by deep incised
lines. It may be that the artist intended to represent the front
view of the left-hand figure and the back view of the other,
with the outline of the arms just discernible through the back
of his wings.

Although the vases before us are hardly so late as the date
of Aristophanes, they may, I think, be shown to throw valuable
light in certain points of detail on the drama of the best known
of Athenian comedians.

Various as were the animals which were introduced upon the
Greek stage as Chorus, such as wasps, frogs, and all kinds of
birds, I do not know a single instance where representations of
these figures have come down to us; it does not appear
likely that so lifelike a frog would have been presented to an
Athenian audience as may be seen in a modern pantomime ; the
particular animal might be unmistakably indicated, and the limbs
of the actor still left free for locomotion and dancing. To this
end the figure would probably be human from the neck down-
wards, while the mask would be as nearly as possible assimilated
to the head of the creature represented ;! perhaps there is an
allusion to this inconsistency of attire in the question of Peis-
thetairos, who asks the Epops where his feathers are (line 103),
and he answers that they have all moulted off, as is customary
with birds in the winter season; and this would give fresh point
to the words of the Epops, line 96—

Μῶν με σκώπτετον
ὁρῶντε τὴν πτέρωσιν ; ἢ γὰρ, ὦ ξένοι,
ἄνθρωπος.

By πτέρωσις we must here understand wings, as we already

1 In a passage of the Knights, line 523, of the Frogs: upon which the scholiast
Magnes, an Athenian writer of comic says: éxployto δὲ τῷ Batpaxelw τὰ
plays, is spoken of as βαπτόμενος Bat- πρόσωπα, πρὶν ἐπινοηθῆναι τὰ προσω-
ραχεΐοις ‘bathing (his face) in ἔτορ-ὀ πεῖα.
eolour,’ an evident allusion to his play

312 ACTORS WITH BIRD-MASKS ON VASES.

(line 103) know he was without feathers: his triple crest had
been remarked at his first entrance (line 94).

Moreover, it will be remembered that when the Epops calls
out his mate the nightingale to show herself to the strangers,
Kuelpides, who wants to kiss her but is afraid of being spitted
on the point of her beak, overcomes the difficulty by removing
the mask from her head (ὥσπερ ὠὸν ἀπολέψαντα ἀπὸ τῆς
κεφαλῆς τὸ λέμμαλ ‘like the shell of an egg, and kissing her
underneath. The scholiast on this passage (line 667) says that
the actor entered τὰ ἄλλα κεκαλλωπισμένον, τὴν δὲ κεφαλὴν
ὄρνιθος ἔχον ὡς ἀηδόνος.

The recurrence on two vases, apparently much of the same
period, of scenes so nearly alike is sufficiently significant to
justify the assumption that the artist or artists had some
special representation in mind: the evidently dramatic character
of the pictures had led me to hope that they might be con-
nected with a school of the Greek drama, or even with a
particular scene from the earlier comedy. Unfortunately, how-
ever, the extreme scantiness of the fragments which have come
down to us of the writings of the comedians before Aristophanes
or of his contemporaries makes it impossible to draw any con-
clusions from this source. Moreover, I have been unable to
discover any vase paintings of this period which deal with this
or a similar class of subject. Comic scenes are of frequent
occurrence on vases: but they are almost universally, if I am
not mistaken, to be referred to a much later period than the
black-figured vases here published, and are generally late red-
figured or polychrome vases. In these comic scenes the actors
wear the conventional human mask and false stomach, and
savour very strongly of their Dionysiac calling, seeming, too,
from their constrained attitudes, to represent specified scenes
probably well known at the time of their production.

On one vase, published by Tischbein in his Hainilton Collection,
ITI. 57, is a scene which, if the engraving is to be trusted, is
worth comparing with our vases. Unfortunately, there is no
record of its colour, but it would seem to be a red-figured vase,
drawn in a late, careless style. Two figures move to the left,
each carrying a spear and a peculiarly shaped circular shield : the
foremost figure is that of a youth, who wears on his head a head-
dress with a crest like that which we see in the vases here

ACTORS WITH BIRD-MASKS ON VASES. 313

published: his companion, who is of dwarfish proportions, and
who has apparently one of these bird-masks on, wears a helmet
with five vertical feathers or crests. One cannot but be reminded
here of the scene in the Lirds of Aristophanes, where the Chorus
of birds attacks the intruding human strangers. These two figures
would apparently correspond well with the characters of Peis-
thetairos and Huelpides : but in the passage referred to it would
seem that they had laid aside their weapons of defence, the spit
and pot-lid, before. they took the medicine of the Epops which
caused their featiers to grow.

So far as I know, there is only one vase known with a comic
scene which can be actually found to correspond at all accurately
with the description of the poet; it is published in Archdol.
Zeitung, 1849, Taf. ILI. 1, and shows with remarkable fidelity
the scene in the Frogs of Aristophanes, where Dionysos, in the
character of Herakles, smites upon. the door of Pluto’s palace,
while Xanthias with the bundles on his back sits upon the ass
looking on. Of this identification at least there can be no
doubt, and it is much to be hoped that Aristophanes may in time
be further illustrated as more comic vases are discovered. The
subject of birds seems to have been treated by other comic poets
besides Aristophanes. Anaxilas wrote a play called ᾽Ορνιθοκόμοι ;
Magnes, an Athenian, and one of the earliest comic poets,
wrote another Sirds: in the Anights, Aristophanes thus refers
to him (line 522)—

πάσας δ᾽ ὑμῖν φωνὰς ἱεὶς Kal ψάλλων καὶ πτερυγίζων
καὶ λυδίξων καὶ ψηνίζων κ.τ.λ.

The word πτερυγίζων, ‘ flapping wings, would seem to point to
the introduction of some such figures as those in Fig. B: more-
over the date of Magnes, who seems to have flourished about
B.c. 460, would seem to correspond well with the style and
treatment of the painting on our vases. Still, when we consider
the enormous number of comic plays which were written, from
Epicharmos downwards, to whom alone more than thirty-five
are assigned, and the small proportion of fragments which have
survived, the chances are very much against the connection of
comic vase-scenes with their original sources in the poets.

It is quite possible of course that these scenes may be
only conventional representations of the Mimic performances

H. 5.-- ΟἹ, II. Ὗ

314 ACTORS WITH BIRD-MASKS ON VASES.

which we know were common in Athens: Athenaios alone
gives thirteen different branches of this art, all of which, he
says, consisted of music and dancing: these were perhaps the
surviving traces of the origimal source of the Greek drama, and
were suited mostly to a popular low class audience: like the
conjurors, Θαυματοποιοί, the craft probably frequented public
thoroughfares, markets and festivals, and earned a livelihood
much in the same way as our Punch and Judy shows?: curiously
enough, the Lacedaemonian Mimi would seem to have had the
same two favourite characters which still delight Christmas
audiences, the fruit-stealer and the quack doctor.

Whatever these two vases represent, they are interesting
as perhaps unique specimens of their kind, and as possible
illustrations of the dress of the characters of Aristophanes.

CrECcIL SMITH.

1 At the meeting of the Society on ing in appearance to the smaller figure
Oct. 21st, Prof. Constantinides informed in the Tischbein vase occurs, and is
me that in modern Greek puppet shows called xoparyds(?).

a character almost exactly correspond-

BOAT-RACES AT ATHENS. 315

BOAT-RACES AT ATHENS.

IN my paper on ‘Boat-races among the Greeks’ (above,
pp. 90—8) I brought together a considerable number of testi-
monies to prove that boat-racing was a Hellenic sport. As T
was to a great extent breaking new ground, it can scarcely
arouse surprise if I failed to make my collection of authorities
complete. Since the paper appeared friends have been good
enongh to point out to me two or three fresh passages of writers
bearing on the subject of boat-races. Of these the most im-
portant is quoted by Mr. Ridgeway from Pausanias.' That
writer speaking of the town of Hermione, says, ‘Near by is the
temple of Dionysus Melanaegis. In his honour is yearly held
a musical festival, with swimming races, and boat-races («at
πλοίων τιθέασιν ἀθλα) Hermione is situate on a _ very
sheltered bay at the extremity of Argolis, and so admirably
adapted as a site for swimming races and for races of small
boats.

A far more interesting reference than that I have mentioned
1 owe to the courtesy of Dr. Hirschfeld. He points out to me
that in the valuable series of Ephebic inscriptions recently
discovered, mention is more than once made of boat-races
engaged in by the Attic Ephebi, as a regular part of their
training. I could scarcely have missed these mentions had not
Dumont misled me by calling the races joutes nautiques. ‘To us
they are specially interesting because the system of training of
Ephebi at Athens, which we can trace upwards to the third
century B.C., corresponds more closely to a modern English
University education than anything else im antiquity. And we
have in this case the best proof that rowing was not considered

ΧΕ 85; Attique; or the new Corpus Inserr.

2. See Dumont, Essai sur ?Ephébie — Att.
ΥΩ

_ 316 BOAT-RACES AT ATHENS.

among the Athenians as a mere slavish toil, seeing that the
best born and best bred of their youths took part in it.

In an inscription of the first century B.c.1 we find recorded
among the acts of the Attic Ephebi the followmg—

περιέπλευσαϊν δ]ὲ καὶ εἰς Μουνιχίαν ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς ναυσίν,
ὁμοίως δὲ ἔπλευσαν καὶ εἰς Σαζχαμῖν]α καὶ ἐποιήσαντο ἅμιλλαν
τῶν πλοίων, ἔδραμον δὲ καὶ μακρὸν δ[ρ]όμον ἐξ ἑαυτῶν πρὸς
τοὺς ἐν Σαλαμῖνι καὶ ἐνίκησαν.

In an inscription of a somewhat earlier time” there is ἃ very
similar passage—

π]εριέπλευσαν δὲ καὶ τοῖς Μου]νιχίοις εἰς τὸν λιμένα τὸν
ἐμ Μου[νιχίᾳ ἁμ]υλλώ[ μεν]οι, ὁμ[ο]ίως δὲ καὶ τοῖς Διϊσωτηρίοις]"
3 / \ \ > λ 77 ’ val ,
ἀπ[έπλευσαν δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ Αἰ]άντεια κἀκεῖ [rlounodp[evor
Ψ la) / \ 7 \ , a
dplirArxav τῶν πλοίων Kal πομπεύ[σαντε]ς καὶ θύσαντες τ]ῷ
Αἴαντι ἐπῃνέθησαν ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου τοῦ Σαλαμινίων καὶ
ἐστεφ[αν]ώθησ[αν, &e.

Further on in the same inscription* we read—

ἐποιήσατο δὲ καὶ ἁμίλλας τῶν πλοίων ἐν τοῖς γ[ενομέ]ναις
ἐμ Πειραιεῖ] θυ[σίαις καὶ πο]μπαῖς.

From these passages we gather that boat-races on the part
of the Ephebi were part of three distinct festivals.

(1) The Diisoteria,‘ celebrated about the 14th of the month
Skirophorion in honour of Zeus Soter and Athene Soteira.

(2) The Aianteia,> celebrated at Salamis in honour of Ajax
who was said to have borne aid to the Athenians at the battle of
Salamis. On the occasion of this festival it would seem that
the Ephebi went over to Salamis, and there had boat-races
among themselves and foot-races against the youths of Salamis.

(3) The Munychia,® in which Artemis was thanked for her
assistance in the same great battle. At this time the Ephebi
entered sacred vessels in the Peiraeus, and raced round the
Peiraean peninsula to the temple of Artemis in Munychia
where they sacrificed.

M. Dumont suggests that it was to the races belonging to the
last-mentioned festival that the epitaph of the comedian Plato,

1C,].A. ii. 1, No. 470, 16. 4 Dumont, i. p. 291.
3.61.4. ii. 1, No. 471, 29. 5 Ibid, p. 275.
i i 6 Jbid, p. 274.

BOAT-RACES AT ATHENS. 317

which I have quoted above, applies: and he is probably right
rather than Michaelis, who supposes the reference to be to
the Panathenaic festival.

In these inscriptions the usual phrase is ἅμιλλα τῶν πλοίων,
but im one case we have the verb ἁμιλλώμενοι, Which does not
seem to have the same ambiguity of meaning as the former
phrase. The crews which went in competition from Peiraeus to
Munychia must have been racing. The distance between the
two Athenian ports, so far as one can judge from the map was
about four miles. What, however, were the πλοῖα mentioned
in all these passages? That they were not triremes seems
certain, with good writers these are πλοῖα μακρά. Nor can
they have been the clumsy, broad-bottomed merchantmen.
Boats they probably were of a single bank of oars, but by no
means light or small if they could venture across the open sea
between Athens and Salamis. I think that a passage of
Thucydides? will help us to determine what class of vessel
is meant. That writer says of the Peloponnesian fleet preparing
for action, καὶ τὰ λεπτὰ πλοῖα ἃ ξυνέπλει ἐντὸς ποιοῦνται,
they made a hollow circle of ships and put in the midst the
light boats that were with them. So also an unpublished
Calymnian inscription in the British Museum speaks of a
fleet as consisting μακρῶν τε ναῶν Kal λεπτῶν πλοίων. From
these passages and others® it would seem that the larger vessels
of a Greek fleet, triremes and penteconters, were sometimes ac-
. companied by smaller boats, probably with a single bank of
oars, used for lighter purposes, such perhaps as picking up crews
when ships sank or boarding disabled vessels, This class of vessels
probably it is which was rowed by Athenian Ephebi and which
figured at the Actian games and those of Hermione. Of course
they would be clumsy compared with modern boats, but might
yet afford good exercise for muscles and lungs.

Percy GARDNER,

1p, 98. 2 Hat. vii. 87 ἂς,
2 ii, 88.

318 PERSPECTIVE AS APPLIED IN EARLY GREEK ART,

PERSPECTIVE AS APPLIED IN EARLY GREEK ART.

AMONG the earliest drawings on Greek vases it is not rare to
find a lion, for example, or a bird with apparently two bodies and
only one head between them, as in Figs. 1-2. (Pl. XV.) After a
long interval a similar rendering of animal form occurs no less fre-
quently in Roman work, as in the sphinx, Fig. 4. So long as this
curious proceeding in the art of design was thought to be the
outcome of fancy, no explanation of it was sought for. Curtius,}
however, had found from many observations, that Assyrian,
Phoenician, and early Greek designs, were largely imtiuenced
by a principle of dualism, displaying itself mostly in devices
which consist of a group of two animals confronted, the one
responding strictly to the other in form and action, much as the
impression of a seal responds to the seal itself. In early times
when seals were employed to an extent hardly to be realized now,
it may seem to have been easy and natural for an engraver or
other designer to have observed and utilised the peculiarly
decorative effect obtained from the contrast of a seal with its
impression. But simple as this may appear, we know from the
history of invention and discovery that the most obvious matters
of fact continually escape notice until the way has been slowly
prepared for them by other means, and for this reason we may

1 Wappengebrauch und Wappenstil, Fig. 10 — Curtius Fig. 19.
p. 109. In the plate accompanying Of the others, Figs. 1, 5, 6, 7 are from
this article (Pl. XV.) the following vases in the British Museum. Fig. 4
subjects are from Curtius :— is from Mon. d. Inst, Arch, vi. Pl. 41,
Fig. 2 = Curtius Fig. 14. Fig. 9; Fig. 8 from Annali d. Inst.
4.5} Ἢ 16: 1880, Pl. 4; and Fis. 11 from Gazette

0 A » all Arch, 1878, Pl. 6.

PERSPECTIVE AS APPLIED IN EARLY GREEK ART, 9819

assuine that a general principle of dualism in design had begun
to dawn on the minds of artists before 1t was found to exist in
the contrast of a seal with its impression. It is no part of the plan
of Curtius to suggest means by which the principle of dualism
had been developed, whether in the way just indicated or other-
wise. My interest in the question les more in the origin of that
principle, and since the seal engraver may by chance have had
something to do with it 1 have begun with him.

It will be seen from Fig. 5, which represents the head of
Athena on a red figure amphora in the British Museum, that
about B.c. 400 the want of a knowledge of perspective drawing
had led to the singular substitute of rendering both sides of the
crest of her helmet in profile, and strictly contrasted one with
the other. We are plainly shown both sides of the crest. Or
to go back more than a century, we have on the neck of the
Burgon Panathenaic vase an owl (Fig. 7), standing in profile, yet
with the wing of the further side drawn nearly as if seen from
the front. No doubt the result is a symmetrical effect. But the
question here is whether symmetry was not a secondary matter,
and whether in fact the primary impulse of the designer was not
to represent as much as he could of both sides of the bird. The
existence of such an impulse in the early stages of imitative art
will be readily admitted, and to some extent can be traced.
Again we have another helmet (Fig. 6) on an archaic vase in
the British Museum with the two sides of the crest a little apart
from each other, yet evidently drawn with the same purpose as
was seen in the crest of Athena. Nor are these solitary
instances.

Applying this imitative impulse to the figures of animals, with
apparently two bodies (Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4) we need not hesitate to
say that the primary intention of the designer was to exhibit
both sides of the animal in one view. We must suppose him to
be looking at it full to the front, and drawing both sides without
the aid of perspective. A farther step in the same direction
would be to draw each side of the animal as if it were standing
strictly in profile, and then to place both drawings so confronted
that they appear to represent two animals. Figs. 8—9 may serve
as examples of this, or we may take the lions above the gateway
to Mycenae, which on this view would be but one lion, and would
thus satisfy us perfectly as a symbol of the courage that defends

320 PERSPECTIVE AS APPLIED IN EARLY GREEK ART.

a citadel. Two lonsamicably confronted are an absurd spectacle
to common intelligence. Again, on Fig. 10, we have what
Curtius (p. 105) thinks may indicate two rams’ heads hung up
after a sacrifice. But the way to represent two or more objects
is to place them in a series, more or less consecutively, while on
the contrary if you place two identical objects strictly confronted,
as here, you attain unity of effect; and my argument is, that this
form of design had its origin im a true sense of the organic
unity in a creature or object symmetrical in its two sides.

It isa marked characteristic in the drawings of animals on early
gems and vases, to place a lion, for example, or a bull, in profile,
but with the head turned round full to the front. In this way
advantage is taken of a natural attitude to represent as much of
the animal as could be represented on a flat surface, without the
aid of perspective. And by this means the artist in outline can
most nearly approach the artist working in the round, This,
however, appears to have been a more advanced stage than that
in which both sides of the animal were given, the one confronted
with the other, on a principle of symmetry handed down from
the earlfest stage of geometric drawing. In Fig. 11 we have on
the corner of a square base a gryphon seen fuli in front, while
on the two adjoining sides of the base are rendered in relief the
two sides of the gryphon. Imagine the two sides of the base
compressed, and you have a gryphon in the round; or imagine
them flattened out into a horizontal band, and you have the
species of design which we have been discussing. Gryphons and
sphinxes? figured in this manner are common on corners of
bases in Graeco-Roman sculpture, and though I cannot at the
moment find an exact parallel in the earliest imitative art, yet
it is not likely that such a principle was first introduced in later
times. At all events it suits my argument to find these com-
paratively late examples, because I want to show that a
completely analogous principle played a part in Greek sculpture
which it has not been suspected of playing.

In the first place the method in question emphasizes the
centre of a design. It in fact creates a centre towards
which both sides must symmetrically tend. How far it may
have led in the later development of art to the selection of
‘subjects which would most naturally fall into the required

1 Sce also the sphinx on a Greek capital, engraved, Gazette Arch. 1877, Pl. 10.

PERSPECTIVE AS APPLIED IN EARLY GREEK ART. 321

centralisation and balance—such, for instance, as scenes of
combat—it could not now well be determined. But the fact
remains that subjects of this class pervaded early art. In the
second place, if we try to explain by the method in question
such a composition as that of the west pediment of the temple
at Aegina, we find that the groups on each side represent what
would be seen on a section of the battle along the fighting line,
rather than, as now understood, two groups consisting of two
champions or protagonists, each backed by supporters coming
up to stop the gap should the leaders fall. Yet these supporters
are apparently as actively engaged as the principals, though at
present no one suggests what they are doing. Nor is their
gradually diminishing size—though necessary from the form of
the pediment—explained artistically, unless on the theory here
advanced, that they are to be viewed as each more and more
remote from the point of view at which the two foremost
combatants are seen.

The habit of regarding the object to be represented from a
front view, and the collision which ensues when the artist is
limited by the flat surface of the gem on which he has to
engrave it or the marble slab on which he has to sculpture it in
bas-relief, can be illustrated by a large number of instances in
early Greek art, from which we may take, as the most familiar,
the metopes of the oldest temple at Selinus, in Sicily, the en-
graved scarabs with figures of heroes, having the body almost
full to the front, while the action is in profile; or even a group
in the Phigaleian frieze, where we see Apollo and Artemis
driving in profile in a car which is rendered as three-quarters
to the front.

In art of the best period, however, it is mainly in large com-
positions that we find this habit still occasionally operative ; and
here I would observe that the application of it as seen in the
Aegina pediment may in other cases be inverted in such a way
that each side of the composition may increase instead of
diminish as it recedes from the centre. It seems to me beyond
doubt that the composition on the base of the statue of Zeus
at Olympia was an example of this. Such a treatment of the
subject would besides be appropriate for the low level at
which it was to be seen. According to Pausanias (v. 11, 8)
there was in the centre Aphrodite rising from the sea,

922 PERSPECTIVE AS APPLIED IN EARLY GREEK ART.

received by Eros and crowned by Peitho—this group would be
conspicuous in the centre by the low attitude of the goddess,
and by the smallness of stature in her two attendants. At each
side of this group are ranged pairs of deities, increasmg im the
dignity of their character as they approach the extremities of
the composition, the last pair on the one side being Zeus and
Hera, who respond to Poseidon and Amphitrite at the opposite
end. Further, on the one extremity was Helios stepping imto
his chariot, and therefore forming an imposing group as com-
pared with lis appearance in the east pediment of the Parthenon
where only his head and arms are visible. On the other ex-
tremity was Sciene riding on a horse or mule, again doubtless
forming a conspicuous group. It may be argued that the
gradation of stature here assigned to the deities in each wing
of the composition is against the evidence of the east frieze of
the Parthenon, where no gradation is recognized. But the frieze
of the Parthenon cannot be a law to the composition at Olympia,
which was placed at a level as low as, if not lower, than the eye
of the spectator, and would thus appeal to the sight im a manner
almost directly the reverse of that which obtains in the elevated
pediment of a temple.

Whether it be right or not to view the lines of the com-
position at Olympia as vanishing towards the centre in a
perceptible degree, it is at least clear that a very marked
centralization of the subject had been effected by the responsion
of the several pairs of deities ia the one half to the similar pairs
in the other. Centralization in design owes its origin to a sense
of unity in the subject, which sense of unity at its earliest
appearance in imitative art took, as we have seen, the form
of representing two sides of an animal extended horizontally
and symmetricaily. It has been seen also that even when
the art of sculpture was advancing into the higher regions
of composition, this sense of unity had not altogether got rid
of its primitive imperfections. But when we come to the
stage of art in which Pheidias was supreme, we must be
prepared for endless subtilties intended to conceal the simple
principle of the composition without impairing its effect. The

1 A beautiful representation of small silver dise engraved in the Gazelle
Aphrodite rising from the waves, and Arch. 1879, Pl. 19, Fig. 2.
being received by Eros, occurs on a

PERSPECTIVE AS APPLIED IN EARLY GREEK ART. 323

groups which remain from the east pediment of the Parthenon
illustrate this with the richest abundance of detail.

I confess that what is true of the pediments of the Parthenon
in regard to composition, does not at first sight appear as if it
would apply equally to the frieze. Yet starting from entirely
different considerations, 1 had a few years ago arrived at a
conclusion about the frieze which works in with the present
theory. But as that conclusion, though argued out and illus-
trated in the Revue Archéoloyiywe at the time (1879, xxxviii.
p. 139, pl. 21,) is probably little known except to a few
archaeologists who, like Overbeck, have adopted it, 1 may
here repeat that it assumed the sculptor of the frieze to have
regarded the Panathenaic procession, which it was his business
to represent, as cut in two longitudinally. One half he placed
round one side of the temple, the other round the other side,
the double head of the procession meeting on the east front.
It was as if he had looked at the procession from the front, and
then spread its two sides into opposite horizontal bands, exactly
as did the early designers of animals. Of course the two sides
do not correspond in smali details, but in the masses they do. .
If then my theory of the frieze is correct—and I am not aware
of its having been disputed—-we have in it the highest illustra-
tion of the principle of realism in conflict with the principle
of decoration imposed by the limits of a flat surface until
perspective comes in to destroy it. By realism I mean the
habit of taking into view the greatest possible extent of the
object to be figured, and at the same time recognising the
necessity of looking at it full from the front if it is a living
or assemblage of living beings.

being,

A. 5. Murray.

324 ON AN ARCHAIC EARRING.

ON AN ARCHAIC EARRING!

THE ornament here engraved is said to have been found at
Athens in 1874, and to have come from a site then in course of
excavation at the back of the Parthenon. Whatever the circum-
stances of its discovery—and they are confessedly somewhat
obscure—the object is in itself not only very interesting from
an archeological point of view, but (I add this on the authority
of Mr. C. Τὶ Newton) it is also unique.

Wrought of pure gold very rich in colour, the earrmg measures,
from the wire which passed through the lobe of the ear to the
bottom of the pendant, two inches and a quarter. It consists
of two parts ; namely, the earring proper, which is shaped after
an antique pattern much in favour for fibule, and an oblong
plate, or pendant, on which is represented, side by side, a pair
of female figures beaten out in relief. In dress and in attitude,
these figures, though exceedingly archaic, resemble the Canephori

' This earring is the property of Miss Lucy Renshaw.

ON AN ARCHAIC EARRING. 325

of the Erectheum. The arms are down, and straightened closely
to the sides. The hands are turned inwards, the fingers touch’ »g
the sides of the body a little below the hips. The heads :
very large; and the hair appears to be arranged across the fore-
heads in a row of clustering curls. Both figures are exactly
alike in pose and costume. Both wear a talaric Chiton, over
which is a Diploidion reaching to the hips. A veil, which is
however not very clearly indicated, seems to come from the back
of the head, and hangs upon the shoulders. The type and
treatment of these figures is so archaic that the earring may
safely be ascribed to the first half of the sixth century B.c.

If this object was found, as stated, within the precincts of the
Acropolis, it might probably be a relic from the treasury of that
older Hecatompedon which was burnt by the Persians at the
taking of Athens by Xerxes, B.c. 480. As regards the meaning
of the design, there is ample room for conjecture. The Attic
Hore, or Seasons,—Thallo, the Hora of Spring, and Carpo, the
Hora of Autumn, both worshipped at Athens—may perhaps be
personified in this pair of figures. Or possibly the four youthful
maidens called Arrhephori may have been imtended ; two upon
each earring. The Arrhephori, it will be remembered, were
young girls between seven and eleven years of age, chosen
from among the noblest Athenian families. Two were
appointed to supervise the weaving of the famous peplos
patterned with figures of Gods and Giants which was made
for the statue of Athena Polias, and was the principal object
carried in the Panathenaic procession. The other two were
more especially concerned with the festival called Arrhephoria
(Αῤῥηφόρια) ; their function being to carry mysterious and
unknown objects in the sacred vessels of the goddess. These
girls dwelt on the Acropolis, wore white garments, and ate some
particular kind of cakes which were baked especially for them.

The earring bears every appearance of being an ornament
made, not merely for votive purposes, but for wear. It may, of
course, have been the earring of a statue. In any case, it would
probably have been one of a pair; and the companion drop
may eventually be turned up by the spade of some future
excavator.

AMELIA B. Epwarps.

326 STATUETTE OF PALLAS FROM CYPRUS.

STATUETTE OF PALLAS FROM CYPRUS.

AmonG the objects recently acquired by the British Museum
is a beautiful terra-cotta from a grave at Salamis in the Island
of Cyprus, of which I give a representation on Plate XVI. The
figure is that of a goddess who wears a long ehifon with diplovis,
and a hination over her back and arms. Long tresses fall over
her shoulders ; on her head is apparently a stephane,! though it
may be intended rather for a taenia or band; in her ears are-
round earrings. Her right hand is passed into the interior of
a crested Corinthian helmet, her left hand rests on the edge of
around shield. Her left foot is slightly drawn back, and the
leg bent.

The figure is 74 inches in height, and stands on a square
pedestal 3 of an inch high. The back is quite unworked, and
in the midst of it is the usual round hole, made to facilitate the
baking. Slight traces of red colour appear on the hair of the
goddess and the crest of the helmet, and we may observe on the
lower part of the drapery some of the white ground-mixture with
which terra-cotta figures were covered as a basis for colouring.

In the modelling of the hand and some other parts a certain
carelessness or clumsiness is observable. But nevertheless no
one could hesitate to acknowledge that the work belongs to
a fine time of art. It is probably nearly contemporary with the
fizures of the same class from Tanagra, which closely resemble
it in fabric, and which are assigned by competent authorities to
the latter part of the fourth century B.c. In fact it pleases even
better on a second or third examination than on the first, and is
full of charm and gracefulness.* The figure is very slight,

1 That is, a metal coronet above the 2. For this assertion the reader must
brow ; see Gerhard, Antike Bildwerke, take my word, as the engraving is not

Pl. ecciii, The taenia or diadema, onthe very successful. Good drawings from
other hand, was a mere ribbon. the antique are scarce.

STATUETTE OF PALLAS FROM CYPRUS. 327

evidently a youthful and maidenly form, not fully developed,
and by no means of a voluptuous type, but full of energy and
vigour. The face is somewhat thin for a Hellenic countenance,
but well finished, and of gentle and pleasing aspect. The
drapery is managed by a masterly hand, and, no less than the
form it covers, belongs to a young unwedded girl. We have
clearly before us a noble, if a somewhat unusual, representation
of the virgin goddess, Pallas Athene. |

Before further determining the character of the statuette,
I take the opportunity of saying afew words as to this class of
productions, which has in consequence of the wonderful finds at
Tanagra become familiar to all lovers of art, but has scarcely in
this country received sufficient attention from the archaeological
point of view.

A close examination of our statuette fully confirms what
M. Rayet says! as to the mode of manufacture of these figures.
It is clear that a mould of the front of the figure was first cut in
wood or some other substance. Into this mould was pressed
a lump of clay, which was then worked on until it was a mere
shell. Then a rough back, like a piece of pie-crust, was fitted on,
and the whole figure next withdrawn from the mould. The
damp clay was then worked up with a tool. Traces of such
work are to be seen in the face and hair of the present statuette.
Afterwards the figure was baked, and then dipped in a white
solution, on which as a basis were laid the colours with which
the whole was painted. These colours not having been burned
in, have disappeared from the statuettes which have come down
to us, except in cases where they were preserved in damp-proof
praves.

The whole question as to the meaning and objects of terra-
cotta statuettes is most obscure.” The great majority of those
which have come down to our day have been preserved in
tombs ; but no one knows why they were placed there. In the
tombs at Tanagra the beautiful figures of local fabric are crowded
without order or arrangement. Some lie flat, some stand upright,
some are inverted. As many as twenty have been found in a

1 Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1875, i. Arts, 1875, April, June, and July ;
pp. 306 sqq. Heuzey, Mon. publ. par l’ Assoc. pour
2 See Kekulé, Thonfiguren aus Tan- UEncouragement des Etudes Grecques,
agra, Preface ; Rayet, Gazette des Beaux- 1878, 4,6. Gaz. d. Beaux-Arts, xii. 195.

328 STATUETIE OF PALLAS FROM CYPRUS.

single tomb. And even, as if there were not room enough inside
many more figures are found in the earth outside the tombs,
buried in disorder and profusion. What possible cause could
have induced men to bury these bright and beautiful figures in so
indiscriminate a manner? We should no doubt be somewhat
nearer to the solution of this problem if we knew what they are
intended to represent. Do they usually represent the forms of
gods or of human beings? It is now generally agreed that the
terra-cotta figures found in the earlier tombs, mostly female figures
seated and closely draped, represent goddesses, Demeter and
Persephone, Hera or Aphrodite. The presence of such forms as
these need not surprise us. The votary who had cherished the
image of one of the great goddesses during his life, would still
more need it after his death, to guard him in the land of shades.
But when we reach tombs of a later period, and find, in the
place of staid figures of seated deities, female forms in every
graceful attitude, and sometimes even figures which appear to
be made with comic intention, we are at a loss what to think.
M. Heuzey has maintained, what will to most people seem
a paradox, that even in the later terra-cotta figures from Tanagra
and elsewhere, the meaning is religious. With subtle analysis,
he divides them into groups. In the figures but partially draped
he sees representations of Aphrodite, in the infants, the child
Hermes, in the veiled statuettes, figures of Demeter, the veiled
goddess. He points out that Greek religious festivals, and even
the great mysteries of Eleusis, were by no means wanting in
a lighter and more mirthful aspect. Even in the quaint figures
of old women among the terra-cottas he sees reference to certain
incidents in the history of Demeter. Thus he still makes the
grave a chapel, and fills it even in later Greek times with
favourable and protecting images. The opinion of M. Rayet is
quite opposite, and more in keeping with the tendency of modern
hermeneutics. While acknowledging a religious meaning in
some of the later terra-cottas, he sees in the large majority of
them mere representations of figures from every-day life, the
women and the children who moved in the streets of Tanagra,
celebrated for beautiful women. In very early times, he remarks,
the Greeks buried with their beloved dead their weapons of war,
and stores of food and drink, and even slew, to send in their
company to the next world, their female kin or captive women.

STATUETTE OF PALLAS FROM CYPRUS. 329

Of these customs we find traces preserved in various degrees in
various parts of Greece. But everywhere the traces become
more and more conventional with time. In the place of stores
of drink we find empty vessels; for light, lamps that have
never been kindled. Real bread is replaced by loaves of terra-
cotta. What then is more likely, than that in the place of the
bodies of slain wives and dependants, the later Greeks should
bury, with their dead, terra-cotta images of human beings, to
people the solitude of the grave and furnish the dead with
pleasing companionship in the world of shades ?

To the explanations alike of M. Heuzey and M. Rayet there
are serious objections, but as I am not prepared to produce
another explanation in the place of those I have mentioned, I
must leave the matter to the reflection of archaeologists.

In the case of the figure now before us, the question does not
arise whether the representation is of goddess or woman. For
all would at once confess that she is a goddess. Greek
women had nothing to do with helmet and shield. But it might
perhaps be questioned what deity is intended. At first sight
every one would suppose the statuette to be of Pallas; whom
the warlike equipment and the slender and vigorous proportions
would well suit. But a doubt might arise whether the goddess
is not rather the armed Aphrodite familiar to students of Greek
mythology.

And in fact this is not such a paradox as it may at first
seem. Pallas and Aphrodite alike owe their earliest form in art
and some of their moral characteristics, to the same armed
goddess, the Sidonian Astarte, who joined to the military
ardour of Athene the sensuous nature of the goddess of love.
Where Phoenician colonies were settled the cultus of the armed
Astarte was not unusual. And even when Greeks had ousted
Phoenicians from their factories, they sometimes retained a
figure of an armed goddess in the temples. This goddess they
frequently called by the name of Aphrodite. This is indeed
generally known, and 1 need bring forward but a few instances.
Hesychius mentions an armed Aphrodite of Cyprus (éyyevos
"Adpodirn) : at Cythera there was a very ancient wooden statue
of Aphrodite, armed!; both Sparta and Corinth worshipped the
armed Aphrodite. It is true that only a few representations of

1 Pausan. iii, 23, 1. Cf. Bernoulli, Aphrodite, pp. 58, 454.

H.S.—VOL. IL. Ζ

330 STATUETTE OF PALLAS FROM CYPRUS.

Aphrodite armed have come down to us. But such are not
unknown. On a vase of early style in the British Museum,?
Aphrodite, who drives in a chariot with Poseidon, wears the
aegis, and to prevent all mistake her name (Αφροδίτης) is
written behind her in clear, well-formed characters. On denarii
of the younger Faustina Venus Victrix is represented as holding
helmet and spear, and Venus Genetrix as a draped figure holding
in her right hand Victory and in her left a shield. It can scarcely
be doubted that earlier Greek prototypes of these figures must
have existed. And this is confirmed by the circumstance
that Antipater of Sidon, Alexander the Aetolian, and other
writers have left epigrams written on statues of the warlike
Aphrodite.’

Knowing that this statuette came from Cyprus, I hesitated at
first whether to see in it the martial goddess of love. But such
a view is scarcely to be maintained. Salamis in Cyprus was
not given up to Aphrodite like Paphos and Amathus; there was
in the city a temple of Athene, and her head appears almost as
frequently on coins of Salamis as the head of Aphrodite her-
self. The graves, too, of Salamis are Greek, while those of
other parts of the island contain objects of oriental character.
And the present figure is clearly the work of a Greek hand.
But it would scarcely. occur to a Greek of the fourth century to
represent Aphrodite under the guise of a young virgin, and as
armed. And Pallas, though seldom, does sometimes appear
without helmet and aegis. For instance, we can cite vases where
in company of Herakles, she is often unarmed and of less severe
type.” Pausanias* saw no objection to applying the name of
Athene to a statue of a maiden crowned with flowers which he
saw at Megalopolis. Less often Pallas appears only partly armed.
In a gem in the British Museum she holds a helmet in her hand ;
and she appears in the same attitude in vases, usually of post-
Alexandrine style, for instance, a vase from Camirus in the
British Museum, representing the birth of Exichthonius.® It is

1 Lenormant et de Witte, Elite 3 In the British Museum vase No.
céramogr. iii. Pl. 15. It is not im- 584, for instance, where her name is
possible, however, that theintroduction written on the vase.
of the name of Aphrodite may be the = Villa Lgl
“mere error of a scribe. 5 Annali dell’ Inst. di Corr. Arch.,

2 See Welcker, Gétterlehre, ii. 708. iit p: 62, (PIE.

STATUETTE OF PALLAS FROM CYPRUS. 331

well known that in the Parthenon frieze she bears only the aegis
and no helmet at all.

We see then how the type of our statuette might easily arise
towards the end of the fourth century B.c., at a time when all
the types of the great deities, especially of Apollo and Dionysus,
were being varied and softened. As these male deities became
mild and gentle, so Athene laid by the severity of her armour
and her rigid stateliness, and appeared in more maidenly and
pleasing fashion. But in the case of this goddess the new mode
of representation did not so completely prevail over other types
as in the case of her male rivals, and helmet and aegis remained
constantly her badge until the latest times of sculpture. If our
Athene really wears the stephane, the peculiar property of Hera
and Aphrodite, the type is still more novel and remarkable; but
we cannot venture to assert this positively, for the back hair
is not represented, and so stephane and diadema are hard to
distinguish.

Percy GARDNER.

332 PYTHAGORAS OF RHEGION

PYTHAGORAS OF RHEGION AND THE EARLY
ATHLETE STATUES,

SEconpD ARTICLE.

7

StncE what I last wrote on the subject of Pythagoras of
Rhegion in this Journal,! much evidence has accumulated to
verify what was then brought forward in a more or less hypo-
thetical form. I was greatly encouraged to carry on this research
by the sympathetic criticism of archaeologists both published
and privately communicated, but all, with one slight exception,
evidently written with the view of facilitating an increase of in-
yop of advancing the common object—the study of classical
atchaeology. Among the published criticisms, I have received
the greatest stimulus to continue my research from the reports ἢ
of a lecture delivered by Professor C. Τὶ Newton at University
College, London, in January of this year; and, among the unpub-
lished, a letter from Professor Michaelis with a full and detailed
criticism ; while the fact that in the Berlin Museum of Casts the
‘Apollo’ is now entirely severed from the ‘Omphalos, and
that, in the new catalogue’ of the Museum of Casts at Munich
the words ‘nicht zugehorizen, are inserted into the phrase
‘ Apollo auf dem Omphalos’ is the most important of confirma-
tions I have received from without: for, it was the possible, and
formerly firmly maintained, association of the statue with the

1 No. I. pp. 168-201. 3 Kurzs Verzcichniss des Museums
_ * The Times of January 10th, and von Gypsabgiissen, Klass. Bildwerke
fuller in the Builder of the same in Miinchen, No. 218, B.
week,

AND THE EARLY ATHLETE STATUES. 333

omphalos as its base that I-felt to be the only positive evidence
against my hypothetical assumption.

Still, it will ever remain a most difficult task to convey to
others, with anything like adequate convincing power, the actual
weight of an inner conviction which has grown gradually in
time, passing through many stages of individual confirmation,
and confirmation, moreover, which often came from quarters
where the facts seemed at first to run counter to it. Such inner
workings of the mind which lead tuo conviction cannot, from
their very organic quality, be imparted fully and at once to
others, even if they are not previously biassed in having formed
differing opinions on the same subject. It is like attempting to
transfer to a third person the faith one has in a friend, which
has arisen almost unconsciously with the first touch of sympathy,
has grown with long acquaintance, and has become fixed and
fastened by his actions under the most varying circumstances.
Such an organism of faith and well-founded inner feeling cannot
be taken asunder into words and reunited together in half-an-
hour’s conversation, so that it will present a new organism with
all the life which growth in time and under favouring circum-
stances has given it. To continue the simile: it is in some
cases only the specialist who has the means of forming so
intimate an acquaintance with certain questions of his study,
it is only he who lives in that atmosphere in which he can
see the subtle bearing of each smallest manifestation upon the
particular question and can feel and appreciate the relation it
holds to the whole—as the friend can see the weight of each
trivial action in the light of the whole character of his friend.
But science cannot heed the inner workings of the mind of
even the greatest of its especial professors, it cannot attach
any weight to the feelings of the researcher—so long as they
remain feelings. It is one of the great tasks of the man of
science to study, to recognise, and to enumerate the causes of
his belief, recognise and impart the origin of his feelings. He
must, by his method of exposition, force the reader to make
the synthesis anew, so that he re-creates in the reader the con-
viction which before was only in his own mind. But if the
exponent is not to depend upon subjective support he can at
least claim that the reader be not subjective in the way he
receives the evidence. Yet here it is frequently the case that

334 PYTHAGORAS OF RHEGION

each exoteric reader sets himself against making any attempt
at combining into life the various arguments, but selects from
them all one or a group which, by experience or disposition,
lies nearest to him, and bases upon this his acceptance or rejection
of an hypothesis. The nature of an hypothesis, however, gene-
rally is that it does not originate from or wholly depend upon
one argument only, but that the sum of all the reasons together
produce that high degree of probability.

In the present case ‘Of the identification of the Choiseul-Gouffier
statue with Pythagoras of Rhegion, we must also not forget that
there is a negative way of testing the tenability of the hypo-
thesis, and we must ask: if not this, what then? The third
possibility of entirely withholding our judgment will not hold
good, For the statue exists and has been the subject of published
discussion (and if it had not it would be high time that it should
be); and the notices concerning Pythagoras exist and have been
commented upon, and an omission of this important figure in the
history of Greek Art would make that history incomplete ; it is
therefore the duty of archaeologists to fix and make perfect our
notions both about the statue and about the sculptor Pythagoras.
The question then must be asked: If this statue is not an
athlete, what is it? If an Apollo, enumerate the reasons for
this belief, and compare them with those in favour of an athlete.
For the fact of his having previously been called Apollo, does
not, to say the least, make it unnecessary to prove why he is so
called. There can be no question of a shifting of the burden of
proof in such a case. Priority or antiquity of statement is not,
as it may be in the practice of law, equivalent to a certain
quantity of evidence which gives it a start in proof before all
other claimant propositions. It is this very unconscious in-
ference by analogy which makes people set themselves against
a correction of an earlier statement, even though it be manifestly
more probable on equal grounds of inquiry. On the contrary,
we may say, that the tendency in modern times, ever since the
mania for seeing subjects representing scenes from the ‘mysteries’
which raged even thirty years ago has subsided, has been to rob
many an illustration of its divine or religious character, and to
bring it much nearer the hearth and human life. Greek art
represented much more of the life that was about it than was
formerly supposed: the sepulchral slabs have been most in-

AND THE EARLY ATHLETE STATUES. 335

structive in this respect. Many a so-called Apollo and Hermes
will have to quit his divine epithet and descend to the character
of a simple ephebus or a particular athlete?

The question must further be asked: If this statue represents
an athlete and is not by Pythagoras, by whom is it 72 Exception
might be taken to the putting of this question ; for it may be
objected, that it may belong to a sculptor or a school unknown
to archaeologists. Yet this objection will not hold good, for the
host of passages in the numerous authors relating to Greek art
make it more than probable that no great sculptor and school
have been omitted, and no very celebrated work of such a
sculptor. Now, if any athlete statue exists in as many replicas
as does this statue, one is justified in concluding that it must
have been, not only the work of a celebrated sculptor, but akso
an individual statue of much repute. Then let the answer to
both these questions be compared with the reasons for this
attribution of the ‘ pugilist’ to Pythagoras of Rhegion on equal
grounds, and whichever is weightier let it be considered the
better hypothesis, that is, the best explanation of facts about
which it is our duty to know something.

jut I may hope that with the confirmation now given the
subject has been, if not lifted entirely out of the sphere of the
‘probable into the sphere of the certain, yet at least placed so
high in probability that it practically is on the very boundary
line between these two phases of human knowledge.

IT.

It appears from the report of Mr. Newton’s lecture that he
ranges the arguments adduced in the first paper under two
heads, those that go to prove that the statue under consideration
is not an Apollo, and those that tend to show that it is an

1 But we must also take a warning from human life everywhere, and of
from the evils of aformer ‘fashion,’ and ignoring the fact that, after all, divini-
not, in combating this very exaggera- ties were the subjects most commonly
tion run to the other extreme of over- thought worthy of artistic representa-
humanising Greek art, of seeing scenes _ tion by the Greek artists.

336 PYTHAGORAS OF RHEGION

athlete and the work of a particular sculptor, Pythagoras.
Strange to say, Mr. Newton looks with greater favour than I
could have possibly expected upon the arguments I have ad-
duced to show that the statue is an athlete and may probably
be the work of Pythagoras, yet does not consider that the
arouments that go to show that it 7s not an Apollo are so
conclusive. Others, however, consider the first part of the
paper to prove its point beyond any doubt, while they hesitate
to accept the second half. Some archaeologists think I am right
in the positive part and wrong in the negative, others, that I am
right in the negative and wrong in the positive; so that between
the two I am either wholly right or wholly wrong. However, I
prefer to accept their joint verdict in so far as 7¢ is positive.

No evidence has been adduced to show that the conclusions
I arrived at in the first paper concerning the typical head-dress
of the early athletes, in contradistinction to divinities, were
unfounded. These conclusions were based upon a great number
of instances of ancient monuments quoted in that paper, and a
considerable number which I met with in the various museums
of Europe, and which I judged unnecessary to add to the list
of evidence. Quite recently again I have seen several bronzes
in the museum at Berlin which entirely bear out my conclusion
—nay, even serve to show that for some of the lighter games,
such as the throwing of the discus, even long hair floating
down the back was worn. A most noteworthy instance of this
is the stelé with a diskophoros,! an archaic monument found
under the ruins of the old Themistoclean wall at Athens. At
all events, I may say that I have found numerous archaic
figures whose attitude, attributes, or if paintings environment,
evidently show them to be athletes with the hair braided after
the manner of the Choiseul-Gouffier statue; while I have not
met with a single work with similar hair which, from other
reasons, can be shown without a doubt to be an Apollo. It is
hardly necessary to say that the enumeration of a number of
busts or heads, or ignorantly restored statues, which have been
called Apollos, can not be used as evidence on either side of
the question, especially since the Athenian statue and the
Omphalos have been shown to be in no way connected. I have
vainly endeavoured to find the first instance in which this type

* Overbeck, Geschichte der Griech. Plastik., 8rd ed., vol. I. p. 152.

AND THE EARLY ATHLETE STATUES. 337

of head has been described in print as that of an Apollo, and
which since has fixed it in archaeological literature ; and I must
attribute it to the habit of early archaeologists to consider every
youthful and beardless figure that came to light from the
classical world to be an Apollo, as most bearded figures were
named Zeus or Jupiter. But as I have before said, the pro-
longed continuance of a proposition put forth in a period when
archaeology was comparatively in its infancy cannot be a claim
to more ready acceptance. To show that this type of head is
that of an Apollo, it will be necessary to adduce at least as many
figures undoubtedly Apollos with this arrangement of hair as
I have enumerated instances of undoubted athletes. And this
will be especially called for in an instance in which we have
to deal with that marked illustration of bodily strength and
with that peculiar athletic attitude which is found in the
Choiseul-Gouftier statue.

I may here say that an anatomist of wide reputation,
commenting upon the development of the pectoral muscles and
the whole of the upper part of the body of the London statue,
quite recently expressed his opinion that there could be no
doubt of the intention of the sculptor to accentuate the strength
of the man, especially in the upper part of the body.

I must confess I was astonished to find that no notice was
taken by my critics of one of the most important arguments,
namely, the connexion between the attitude of the statue and
the ever-recurring typical position of the ephedros in the athletic
contests. The Greeks had a firmly founded system of exercise
and drill in the Palaestra for each special game, and this drill
included numerous typical attitudes for each individual contest
and the various stages of each contest. This drill, which
amounted to sham fight, was called by them σκιαμαχία. Now,
on innumerable vases we find, besides the judge and the two
combatants, a third pugilist or pancratiast waiting for his turn
in a constant and peculiar position, which was, we may say,
‘attitude No. 1, before the fight,’ The same is the case in
boxing in our days, and still more in fencing. This preliminary
position, moreover, with the arms and shoulders drawn back
and the chest protruding, is a most rational one to the Greek’s
artistic eye, for it tells its story clearly; the most important
part of such a man’s body where his strength chiefly lies, is the

333 PYTHAGORAS OF RHEGION

chest, arms, and shoulders. These ¢typica? positions in the
σκιαμαχία were the most ready suijects for the Greek sculptor,
who chiefly made lis studies in the Palaestra; and, as ἃ matter
of fact, the great number of monuments, statues, vases, figures,
&e., representing the throwing of the discus that are extant,
could readily, and with ereat profit, be used to show all the
various stages of procedure in this game, from its preparation to
the expectant attitude of the thrower after the discus has left
his hand. Myron chose the moment of highest tension and of
complex contortion in his representation of a discobolos, and we
know from the notices of ancient authors that this suited his
peculiar artistic nature which delighted in the expression of
extreme vitality. If he were to have represented the pugilist
it is likely that like some later artists he would have chosen
from the various postures of the σκιαμαχία an attitude of
actual engagement expressive of intense exertion, Not so the
earlier artists and those of a more moderate and noble taste for
what is most suitable for reproduction in sculpture. They
would with preference choose the monumental attitude of the
preliminary posture in the pugilistic contest, that of the Hphe-
dros, as we see him on almost every vase representing a πυγμή,
and as we see him in this statue in the British Museum.
Professor Michaelis asks in his letter that I should explain to
him the adjunct to the tree stump in front of the strap and the
two puntelli above it, before he is prepared to accept my interpre-
tation of the statue. Yet if I have shown that the strap on tre
stem is decidedly a Aimas, this evidence is not nuilified by my
incapacity to explain the other adjuncts. One thing is certain,
that the projection in front of the strap is not the extremity of
the lyre of an Apollo nor of any Apollinian attribute that I
can think of. Mr. Newton confirms the athletic character of
the attributes in holding this projection to be a plait. This
may be so, though it is not very distinct. Yet if it is a broad
plait or network the question still remains, what purpose it
served? Andif I am bound to make some conjecture on the
matter, I should with all caution draw the attention of archae-
ologists towards many vases with athletic scenes on which
athletes carry their athletic implements (strigil, flask, &c.) in
stnall nets very similar to those used for lawn-tennis balls with
us. In some cases these nets are represented as hanging on the

AND THE EARLY ATHLETE STATUES. 339

wall together with other similar objects, and their pointed ends
may bear some similarity with the end of this plaited adjunct.
However, I must say, that it is not unlikely that this rough
surface is meant rudely to indicate the bark of the knotty
branch there chopped off, as the peculiar appearance at the
bottom of the stem has no attributive meaning, but is merely
an indication of a form continually to be met with in trees
when the bark has split in places and a thick seam incloses the

eal GLAM ieee

"ἡ

wound (if we may call it so) in the process of growth. The
same applies to the first of the pwnteili alluded to by Michaelis.
This is simply the stump of the lopped off branch. Similar
projections can be seen on almost every tree stump of the
numerous statues that have them. I am very grateful to
Professor Michaelis for having led me to examine more closely
the uppermost of these small projections (Fig. 1). For I believe

340 PYTHAGORAS OF RHEGION

that the outline of the thumb which was broken away is dis-
tinctly visible on the fracture. The measurements of the arm
show that the hand would reach to the top of the tree-stump.
The action of the right arm would then be most natural.
Similar to the ephedros on the vase published by Gerhard, this

EG

athlete would hold the himas passing through one hand between
the thumb and palm over the first joint of the forefinger, and
hanging down the side of the tree. The hand would thus be
touching the edge of the stump. Thus, closing his hand through

1 Antike Bildwerke, Taf. vii.

AND THE EARLY ATHLETE STATUES. “41

which a strap is suspended, the thumb in a perpendicular
position crossing the horizontal though upturned forefinger, will
project downwards beyond the other fingers, the forefinger
again projects downwards over the middle finger, the middle
over the third, and so on. If the hand is turned up and
examined, it presents the picture of four steps leading up toa
pinnacle severed from the last by a small breadth. Now, above,
and somewhat behind this fracture of the thumb, a small piece
is broken away from the top of the stem proper, which would
well correspond to the place where the forefinger rested on the
trunk. The remainder of the hand would have been free. The
nature of the fractures will well bear out this assumption, and
this becomes still more probable when we bear in mind that as
the himas does not hang over a branch it must have been held
in some way by the athlete.

When once guided by the nature of the fractures on the
tree stumps we have made this restoration, the position becomes
most natural, in fact, the only possible one. The somewhat
inadequate sketch (Fig. 2) will serve to illustrate this position.
The arm could not have been further forward or else the shoulder
would follow, while it is strongly drawn backward. The nature
of the relaxed muscles of the upper arm as it is extant, show
that the forearm must have gone down to the stump; or else
the biceps would be contracted. If one imitates this natural
position, one would immediately feel by “experiment” as it
were, that this is the real position of a figure in such an attitude
with regard to the upper part of the body.

That this statue is that of an athlete, and more especially
a pugilist, is finally confirmed when we compare it with
the marble statue of the pugilist formerly in the Palazzo
Gentili, and now in the Palazzo Albani (Fig. 3). I have
previously noticed this work and quoted it from Clarac, yet the
outline drawing was so incomplete that its important bearing
upon our question was not evident to me. The similarity of
attitude in the character of chest and shoulders down to the
position of the feet is quite evident upon comparison. Professor
v. Duhn has very kindly sent me the proof-sheets of his new
edition of Matz’s Antike Bildwerke in Rom, which contains a
careful notice of all accessible monuments in the private
collections in Rome, and it is from him that I have learned its

eel Peer 9555"
2 ἢ Ἢ

σου σον σον απ

aCe νον»

PYTHAGORAS OF RHEGION. 343

present position: for it is published? as being in the Palazzo
Gentili, We here have the typical position of the pugilist, and,
what is most important is that, though a great deal of the
statue is restored,” the right forearm, with a part of the caestus
and joining puntello, is original. This statue is no doubt of
later date than those we are dealing with, yet it is a modified
adaptation of the same athletic type. And though there may
not be any similarity in the details of style and of modelling,
there is something more than similarity in the subject repre-
sented: there may be a difference in ‘the how’ he is repre-
sented, but there is no difference in ‘the what’ is represented.
The relation between the style of these two pugilists, if there
is any, is of no concern to us; but for the present the Gentili
pugilist finally shows that the statues in the British Museum, the
Patissia Museum at Athens, &c., formerly called the Choiseul-
Gouffier Apollo, the Apollo on the Omphalos, &c., are not
Apollos, but pugilists.

1088

I may hope to have proved definitely that the statue in
question is that of a pugilist. The second point, the attribution
of this work to Pythagoras of Rhegion has received further con-
firmation since it was first put in a hypothetical form. It will
readily be seen that the fact that this statue represents a pugilist
greatly adds to the probability of its proposed attribution.

1 Cf. Matz, Antike Bildwerke in Rom, ciclop. iii., 85. It is not quite certain

new ed. p. 319; Ficoroni, Breve descriz.
di tre particolari statue scaqpertesi in
Roma, Vanno 1739, viii., &e.; also in
Raccolia Wopuscoli scientif. e filolog.
pubbl. da A. Calogieri, vol. xxii.,
491—506, Venezia 1740; Fea, Mise. i.
exxxv. 57, and, Singolarita di Roma
Moderna, 61; Gerhard, Antike Bild-
werke, \xvili. 3; Clarac, Pl. 858 Dn.,
2187 A.

2 The restoration was made for the
Marchesa Gentili by Vincenzo Pacetti
between 1770 and 1775. Mem, En-

whether the antique head belongs to
this statue or not. In it are restored
the nose and a piece of the left eyebrow.
Further restorations are: the neck, the
left hand, right upper arm, and right
hand (the fore-arm, with puntello, is
original), and both legs, the right from
above the knee down, the left from below
the knee, also trunk and base. Cf. v.
Duhn, Matz, 7.c. The restorations are
marked with dotted lines in our en-
graving.

344 PYTHAGORAS OF RHEGION

For, among the sculptors before Pheidias, there is no other
to whom such a work could be attributed, while Pythagoras of
Rhegion was a sculptor of athlete statues par excellence, among
which that of a heroified pugilist, Euthymos, was most celebrated
and frequently copied. Moreover this sculptor, according to the
ancients, was ‘the first’ to express sinews and veins and to
aim at the expression of rhythm and symmetry in his works.

It is inconceivable how the ‘archaising’ mania should have
impaired the vision of some archaeologists even with regard to
this work, and it can only be explained by a circumstance to
which I have previously drawn attention, namely, that the
very incongruity of an athlete on an omphalos to which
the statue did not properly fit, gave the whole work a want
of unity which is the chief characteristic of the later
archaising schools, such as that of Pasiteles. I readily take
this opportunity of again impressing upon those who have
had the great merit to discover a current in the later Greek
art which more or less consciously strove towards the repro-
duction of remote and even conventional styles, that in all
the work of the later copyists there is the unavoidable tendency
towards introducing the innovations of their contemporary art.
This tendency may be called modernising, and its involuntary
influence upon the bond fide copy of a work remote in antiquity,
would readily produce an effect in some respects similar to that
of a new creation with a conscious attempt at reproducing the
characteristics of an early art. There is nothing severely archaic
in this work, no evident attempt at reproducing the imperfections
of an artistic technique which is in its infancy, except perhaps
the exaggeration and clumsiness of the indication of veins, and
this is a most important positive argument in favour of our
attribution. The general modelling in all the parts of the
surface is not inferior to the composition of the whole figure.
The germs of the very highest power of representing the
surface of the human body in its full vitality, the naturalness
of the pose, the combination of each member with the main
body, while, on the other hand, a certain simplicity, almost
severity, still binds this posture, and is more evidently cast
over the face—all this points most definitely towards that
period of transition from quaint archaism to the highest
freedom of Pheidiac art. This mixture of freedom with traces

AND THE EARLY ATHLETE STATUES. 345

of constraint and unobtrusive severity similarly marks the
period of transition in the history of Italian painting; and
the unprejudiced exclamation of the modern painter upon
seeing the London statue ‘ Mantegna’, was a great confirmation
of the conclusion towards which I had been driven through
so many definite reasons. Should this statue appear too free
in its style for a work of Pythagoras, I would direct the
attention of the archaeologist to the Aegina marbles, and
remind him of the fact that they are contemporary, and that
the ἐργασία Αἰγιναία was considered hard in style by the
ancients! ; and I would bee him to examine the extreme
freedom of the works of Myron, who was but a few years
younger than Pythagoras, and who was vanquished by his senior
with the Delphic Pancratiast.2. And if some consider it too
archaic, I would recall to their minds that, after all, Pythagoras
is not yet Pheidias, nay, that he is, in the midst of this trans-
ition, one of its most powerful agents; that he is the innovator,
as is evident from the passages in which he is pramus and
πρῶτος to have added new freedom to his works. And they
must furthermore bear in mind that the idea of constraint
which was suggested to them by the back-drawn shoulders
bearing some similarity to the cramped position of some very
archaic works, and in which Kohler* saw the marked archaism
of the figure, has a definite intended meaning in the represen-
tation of a pngilist-ephedros, and cannot therefore be compared
to the stiffness which is the result of the early artist’s incapacity
to represent the easy, natural ‘flow of life.’ The question must
be asked, How did archaeologists conceive a statue by Pytha-
goras? And here it was most interesting to me to learn from
the letter of Professor Michaelis that he had formerly thought
of this very statue as an illustration of the art of Pythagoras,
and had even mentioned this in some of his lectures. It is not
unlikely that the appearance of Conze’s essay on ‘The Apollo on
the Omphalos’ made him desist from prosecuting his research
in this direction.

The mischievous archaising theory must be dropped in

1 Paus. v. 25, 12; Quintil. Just. beck, Sg. pp. 81 and 82.
Orat. xii. 10, 7, ‘duriora et Tuscanicis 2 Plin. xxxiv. 59, 8.
proxima Callon atque Hegesias, iam 3 As quoted in my first paper.
minus rigida Calamis,’ ὅς. Cf. Over-

Bes Olu. LE. AA

346 PYTHAGORAS OF RHEGION

connexion with this statue. Its origin can be very easily
accounted for: No instance of the work of the important
sculptor, Pythagoras, had as yet been put forth, even hypo-
thetically; therefore any instance of his work must be new
to our eyes; and what is new and unwonted is strange; and
strangeness is the chief characteristic of the work of the
archaising schools, A work of Pasiteles has neither wholly
the characteristics of early nor of late art, of Attic nor of Pelo-
ponnesian art. But the work of Pythagoras is neither Attic
nor Peloponnesian, neither typically archaic nor post-Pheidiac,
and still it has some of the characteristics of Attic art, so that
Conze would attribute it to Kalamis, and many Peloponnesian
elements, so that two of my correspondents lead it back to a
Polykleitan archetype; and it has slight traces of archaism, so
that half the authorities place it before Pheidias, and also
elements of great freedom, so that the other half place it
in the time of Pasiteles. But what all this uncertainty clearly
means is, that we here have to deal with a school, the work of
which was not known to us before, and that, in point of time,
this ‘neither early nor late’ means the period of transition, and
the ‘neither wholly Attic nor Peloponnesian with elements of
both’ means a new South Italian school which was sufficiently
connected with the great Greek schools to profit by their teach-
ing, and of suflicient independence that one of its sculptors
could in important points of artistic advancement be the primus
and the πρῶτος.

Another very simple but none the less probable origin of the
idea that the Apollo on the Omphalos belongs to the late
archaising period, is the peculiar proportions of the figure, very
tall and with a comparatively small head. Now it is well
known that the Polykleitan canon was square and massive,
while Lysippus created a new canon in elongating the figure
and in diminishing the size of the head. Now as there were
unmistakable elements of archaism in our statue, and as the
proportions seemed to correspond to the Lysippian canon, the
conclusion was a very natural one, that it belonged to a time
posterior to Lysippus, yet which strove back to the very earliest
periods of art: 16. that it is archaistic. Conze has quoted
_archaiec vases in which these proportions occur; from which he
rightly upholds the archaic character of the work. Now because

AND THE EARLY ATHLETE STATUES. 347

the Lysippian did thus differ from the Polykleitan canon, there
is no reason to assume that there were not all kinds of human
proportions in sculpture (including some like those of Lysippus)
before ἃ cancn was at all established by Polykleitos. The coin
from Selinus (Fig. 5) to which we shall direct our attention, and
which cannot be later than the fifth century, manifests the same
proportions (if not even more exaggerated in slimness) as our
statue.

I should like to venture upon a wider generalisation which
suggests itself to me through these considerations on the
development of Greek art. It appears to me that the reactive
influence of Greek culture in the colonies of Southern Italy and
Sicily upon the life and culture of the mother country has not
been sufficiently noticed. A colony which from its origin is in
sympathy with the life and aspirations of the mother country,
yet is unhampered by the fixed traditions that often act as a
check to originality, is pre-formed to introduce and rapidly to
live through great reformatory movements. This is true in all
periods of history, and in Greece this must have been to some
degree the position of Magna Graecia. Among many instances
I need merely point to the activity of the philosopher Pythagoras
at Croton, an idealistic yet real reform in philosophical theory
no less than in social and political life. In art I had always
been puzzled by the unique character of the earliest metopes
from Selinus, unique alike for their boldness, as also for the
evident traces of schooling, so that they are above all the
contemporary works from the rest of Greece. Yet if we
consider that the emigrant artist who was one of the party
of settlers, though he had received strict schooling at home,
worked with a certain freedom when removed from the eye of
his master and the school, the mixture in these works will no
longer strike us as strange. Such inferences concerning remote
antiquity are not more improbable because they happen to con-
form with the general likelihood of human action even in our
own very modern times.

Pythagoras of Rhegion was the very person who, from his
hereditary and natural predispositions, could conciliate and
bring together the striking characteristics of the great Attic
and Peloponnesian schools, which, in archaic art, stood as it
were opposed to one another: the strong feeling for vitality,

AA2

948 PYTHAGORAS OF RHEGION

which frequently, from the want of skill in the early artists,
transeressed the laws of form and composition, and the Pelopon-
nesian feeling for law and conventional regularity, which, as in
the numerous reliefs from Sparta that have come down to us, does
not allow the figures to attain the appearance of free vitality.
Before these two elements have been well knit together in
harmony we have not yet entered the period of artistic freedom.
Free from the immediate pressure, from the shackles of any one
school, this Rhegian of Samian origin, whose very adopted
country was a mixture of both races, whose first master was
a Rhegian and the second a Spartan, had all the opportunity to
travel and to learn what each school could give, and not enough
to be a slave to the idiosyncrasies of either of them. And so
Pythagoras became, if not the founder, at least the chief re-
presentative of a school of sculpture which must have flourished
for some time in the Greek colonies of the south of Italy, and
whose numerous remains, found on the spot, have not yet been
sufficiently studied with regard to their distinctive features.

An illustration in favour of the uniform character among
the works found in the south of Italy will at the same time
be the final confirmation I have to offer for the attribution
of our statue to Pythagoras of Rhegion. A Didrachm of

Metapontum, which belongs to the first half of the fifth
century B.C., represents the river-god Achelous with a human
body and a bearded head, which has the horns and ears
of a bull (a combination of a man and a bull is a common
representation of a river-god). He holds in his right hand
a patera, and in his left the branch of some tree. A coin

1 Millingen, Considérations sur les swrles Monnaies de la Presqwile Italique,
Monnaies de VAncienne Italic, de. de, Naples, 1870, p. 264, Nos. 18 and
Notices des Monnaies gravées, &c., suppl. 14, Pl. xix. 7 and 9; Jahn, Arch. Zeit.
P. 5, Pl. i, No. 1; Sambon, Recherches 1862, t. 168, 4, p. 321.

AND THE EARLY ATHLETE STATUES. 349

from Pandosia in Bruttium! has on the obverse a female
head with inscription, ITANAOXIA, surrounded by a laurel
wreath, and on the reverse a youth (Fig. 4) holding in his
right a patera or a wreath, and in his left a laurel branch ;
the inscription is KPA@I, The date of this coin is placed at
about 430 B.c. Finally, the most important of all for comparison
with our statue is the coin from Selinus, before mentioned
(Fig. 5), whose similarity in attitude, proportions, indication of
muscles down to the headdress, is most evident.2, It may be
difficult for many* to compare properly a figure on a small
coin rubbed and effaced by age with a more than over life-
size statue with regard to the similarity of both. The
points of difference between the two will be so striking that
they will monopolise attention to the detriment of any claims
to similarity to one who has but a small number of instances
which would give him a scale of relative difference. But
to a specialist, or one at all conversant with the comparative
study of this class of objects, the similarity of the general type,
of the definite attitude and proportions of the body, will be most
manifest. I must remind the reader that, on p. 187 of the first
article, I suggested as the possible restoration of this statue
a palm branch in his left hand (which would account for the
notch on the left leg of both the London and Athenian statues)
aud a wreath in his right. Both these accessories were the
typical attributes of athletic victors. In this case we must
substitute the himas for the wreath. Now, in the river-gods on
both these coins, we seem to have the type borrowed by the in-
terior artist, the die-sinker, from the well-known athlete statues he
saw in his own immediate environment. It has been shown in
nunierous instances‘ that the figures on coins were generally

1 Sambon, ibid., P. 342, Pl. xxiii. in such instances. I have ever found

No. 18 ; Catalogue of Gr. Coins in Brit.

Mus. (edited by R. S. Poole), Italy, p.
370, No. 1.

2 P. Gardner, River Worship, de.
Transact, of R. Soc. of Lit. vol. xi, p.
173,

3 Whoever has been called upon for
the first time to look through a micro-
scope to notice the likeness between
ininate structures, will see how much
practice it needs to perceive similarity

it more difficult to teach people to per-
ceive similarity than difference. Per-
haps because the perception of likeness
is more a matter of feeling, while diifer-
ence is more a matter of the intellect,

4 ¢.9., the Athenian coins with
regard to the reproduction of the Pro-
machos, the Tyrannicides by Kritios
Nesiotes, the Eirene with the infant
Plutos by Kephisodotos the Elder, ἄς,

350 PYTHAGORAS OF RHEGION

taken from some well-known and celebrated work. But, one
might ask, what is the connexion between these river-gods and
athletes? The ever-moving, twining and twisting mountain-
river of Greece presented himself to the imagination of the
Greek as an active and powerful man, half a beast in his
physical strength; and so, in the earlier representations, he is
generally a combination of man and snake, or man and bull,
from his twining movement and his roaringrush, On innumer-
able vases there are scenes in which heroes wrestle with river-
gods, the prototype of which contest is the wrestling between
Herakles and this very Acheloos.! They are the fathers of great
heroes and athletes, and the very pugilist Euthymos was made the
son of the local river-god Kekynos.?. But especially important is
their connexion with the athletic games which they no doubt
localised, and of which they shared the honour, The hair of
the youths, upon their entry into manhood, is offered them.’ At
Olympia the victor honours the Alpheios * along with the twelve
sreat gods among whom he also has his altar.® Now, as the
great Olympian games were a chronological landmark for the
whole of Greece, so the local games would be for smaller dis-
tricts,and this would be a definite time to strike coins. Mr. Head
has made to me a very ingenious suggestion, that in connexion
with these games there was also a kind of fair, where, all the
neighbouring people streaming together, considerable commerce
was carried on, and thus there would be a call for money and
a natural time to strike it. This would be the purport of the
Ἀχελῴου ἄθλον on one of the Metapontine coins. The river-gods
were represented either as old or young, generally with some
relation to the size of the river. On the coin of Pandosia
the river Krathis is a young man, so also on the Selinus
coin. Now when the die-sinker desired to represent a young
river-god in an athletic connexion, he would naturally, to
some extent, rely upon some famous statue of an artist
of repute within his country. What is more, all these ‘ guilds’
of the higher or smaller art (though the Greeks never made
this distinction, the lesser arts being to them of the highest

1 Soph. Trach. 510, &. Cf. Gard- 6, Paus. viii. 41, 3, Ke.
ner, ἴ.0. 4 Pind. Ol. xi. 48.
» 3 Vid. first paper. > Paus. v. 14, 5.

ὁ 71. xxiii, 142-148, Aesch. Choeph.

AND THE EARLY ATHLETE STATUES. 351

importance), such as sculptors, painters, and architects on
the one hand, and gem-cutters, goldsmiths, vase-painters, and
die-sinkers on the other, were all immediately connected. Nay,
the same artist very frequently practised several of these to-
gether. The figures on the Pandosian and Selinuntine coin
are entirely the type of an athlete, so much so that Sambon
simply calls the first wn ephébe.t It will readily be seen what
important confirmation for our attribution of the statue to
Pythagoras of Rhegion the similarity of the coin from a neigh-
bouring town in tle same province and from a town in the
Vicinity in Sicily is; for, to put it negatively to those unaccus-
tomed to this study, no other coin from any part of Greece can
offer a figure that has anything like the similarity that subsists
between this coin and our statue.

Coins, then, have thus helped us to clench our previous
arguments. By giving a definite locality, or group of localities,
as the home of these mixed characteristics of style, which a
study of the monuments themselves and their history had led
us to point to as marks of a positive school, well defined though
ill recognised as yet, they have enabled us to feel ourselves on
safe ground. Let me only add one point more. During the
last few months M. Rayet has given us an excellent reproduc-
tion of the archaic bronze head at Naples in his J/onwments de
VArt Antique, Livraison II., referred to in my former paper,
Ῥ. 177. A more thorough comparison of this head with the
head of our statue is called for. I must remind the reader that
I have throughout accepted the view that the marbles under
consideration are not late and Roman, but early Greek, copies
from a-bronze original. Now, if our plate of the Choiseul-
Gouffier statue is placed beside the plate of the Naples bronze
in M. Rayet’s book, the extraordinary similarity, almost amount-
ing to identity, will be most evident. 1 must, moreover, draw
attention to the fact that this original bronze head was found
at Herculaneum in Southern Italy. But these suggestions open
the way to a very wide field, which it is impossible to enter
upon now.

CHARLES WALDSTEIN,

lo

A NEW DIADUMENOS GEM.

ῷ9
Cr

A NEW DIADUMENOS GEM.

ANNEXED is a woodcut engraved after an impression from an
intaglio formerly in the hands of Signor Castellani, and now in
private possession in England. The original, which is half the
size of the cut, is a plasma of somewhat rude Roman workman-
ship. Its subject is unmistakable. It represents a victorious
athlete (expressly designated as such by the palm branch placed
in a prize jar at his side) who stands at his ease, with the left leg
free, and his weight thrown on the right, while he winds the
taenia about his head with beth hands.

So far as I am aware, this is the first representation of the
subject on a gem of which an engraving has ever been published.
Only one other is known to exist, and that is on a stone of
similar substance (plasma di smeraldo), formerly in the collection

of a Mr. Currie. A cast of this was issued in the %mpronte
gemmarte of the Archaeological Institute, cent. VI. no. 73 (see

Bull. dell? Inst. 1839, p. 111).1 It lacks the emblems of the
palm branch and jar.

Considering the relation well known to be often borne by the
representations on engraved gems to famous statues of antiquity,
we should naturally expect to recognise, in this subject of
an athlete binding on the facnia, a copy of the celebrated

1 For this reference I am indebted with the Sir William Currie who, in
to the kindness of Professor Michaelis. 1862, bequeathed a collection of en-
ΕἼ have not yet been able to ascertain graved gems aid other antiquities to
whether this Mr. Currie is identical the Museum of the Uffizi at Florence.

A NEW DIADUMENOS GEM. 553

Diadumenos of Polykleitos (Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxxiv. 5, Lucian,
Philopscud. 18). Among ancient marble statues representing
the same subject, the w ork of Polykleitos is generally supposed
to be most faithfully represented by that found at Vaison in the
South of France, and now in the British Museum (see especially
Michaelis, Ann. dell’ Inst. 1878, p. 5, syq., Mon. x. 49, and
compare the bronze statuette of the bibliotheque Nationale,
published by ΔΙ. Fr. Lenormant in the Gazette Archéologique,
1877, pl. 24, p. 138).

Comparing, then, the gem figured in our cut with the Diadu-
menos of Vaison, we and that the attitude, balance, and square
proportions of the figure, as well as the position of the arms,
may be said in a general sense to correspond. On the other
hand, the head and shoulders are slightly less inclined towards
the right of the figure in the gem than in the statue, and there
is less inequality in the height of the two elbows; while the free
left leg is in the statue represented as thrown behind thie right,
as though in the act of walking, but in the gem appears to be
equally advanced with it. This, and the position of the knees,
which in the gem are close together instead of being parted as
in the Vaison figure, brings the representation before us in some
points nearer to the type exemplified in the Farnese statue, also
in the British Museum, than to the Vaison type. It is unsafe,
however, to base any very positive arguments on so slight a
work as this little intaglio. While furnishing a new evidence of
the popularity of the subject among the ancients, our gem fails,
I think, to help us much in deciding which of the well- known
variations of the subject most nearly resembles the original of
Polykleitos. Especially does it fail in giving any indication of
the true character of the head. The face in the intaglio is
disproportionately long, and the features rude and characterless:
the head is surmounted by a shapeless roll composed of hair
and tacnia together. The ends of the tacnia, it will nevertheless
be observed, are clearly shown; they fall from both hands in a
manner fairly answeiing to that in which the one preserved end
(the right) falls from the hand of the Farnese figure.

SIDNEY COLVIN.

oot ON AN UNEDITED RHODIAN INSCRIPTION,

ON AN UNEDITED RHODIAN INSCRIPTION.

ΩΣ ἢ

Ν Α
ΑΤ ΑΚ
ΤΑΣ Σ

oz

ΟΞ ON

OE
QN
ΓΙ
ΚΑ
ΓΗ
ΔΑ
ΩΝ ZTEPA..IKYP.
OENTO HR ee renee SMATOZOIEPIZ..
ΤΑΙΚΑΊΤΟΙ RR es 6 aticajanenasitaae EAHOENTQNTAZ
STEDANQE oss. PEYZIOZENTQIEPE..
SEV TINOU AE SO. eon 5: AIEIZTONMETATAYT .

XPONON®ANEP..... OFANTAEYOAAIAAI
EAEZO ΩΣ ANA....OAEAIPEOEIZAITHZAZ

10

OQTANBOYAANKAI..NAAMONAEAOZOAIEYO 20

_MAAIZEPAINEZAIK,. ZETEOANQZAIZQEIKPA..

ON AN UNEDITED RHODIAN INSCRIPTION.
KAEQNYMOYNETT..ANKAIANALPAYVAZTOA.
TOVAPIZMAEIZZETAAANAIOINANANAGET QE.

NETTEIAIENTQHEPQITQITOYAIOZT OY
PATPQIOY EIKAEYOAANIAAIAPOAEIT ONT...
OAEIEPOTAMIAZTEAEZATQEIZTAEPFAM.
MAEIONAPAXMANPENTHKONTAIPEO...
EY®PANQPAAPAANOYNETTIAAZ
EPIEPEQZAFEZTPATOYKAPNEIOYE
BAOMAIEFIKA.OZEAOFTETAIBOYAA.
KAITQIAAMQIEY®PANQPAAPAANOYN..

TIAAZEIPF EAEAOZOAIEYO®PANOPIAAPAAN..

NETTIAAIKAIEYOAAIAANTQIKOINQIEP..
NEZAIKAIZTE®ANQZAIZOZIKPATHKA.
QNYMOYNETTIAANOAAAOYZTE®AN..
ANAQEMEINAEKAIZTAAANENNETTEL..
-NTOQUEPQITOYVAIO. TOYPATPQIOY

25

10

306 ON AN UNEDITED RHODIAN INSCRIPTION.

ων . στεφάΪνω]ι, κυρ ω-
θέντοϊς δὲ τοῦ ψαφέί]σματος οἱ ἐπισ[τά-
ται καὶ οἱ κ[άρυκες ἐπιμ]εληθέντων Tas 15
στεφανώσϊιος καὶ ἀναγο]ρεύσιος ἐν TO ἔπε[ε-
tla συλλόγῳ" ὅϊπως οὖν κ]αὶ εἰς τὸν μετὰ ταῦτ[α
χρόνον φανερὰ ἢ τὰ δ]όξαντα, Εὐθαλίδαι
ἑλέσθωσαν ἀνδρα], ὁ δὲ αἱρεθεὶς αἰτησάσ-
θω τὰν βουλὰν καὶ [τὸ]ν δᾶμον δεδόσθαι Evd- 20
‘> > , \ Le) Ὁ /
αἸἰλίδαις ἐπαινέσαι κ[ αὶ] στεφανῶσαι ΣωσικράΪτη
Κλεωνύμου Νεττ[ίδ]αν καὶ ἀναγράψας τόδ[ε
τὸ ψάφισμα εἰς στάλαν λιθίναν ἀναθέτω ἐν
Νεττείᾳ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τῷ τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ
Ilatpwiov εἴ κα Εὐθαλίδαι ἀποδείξωντ[αι"
ὁ δὲ ἱεροταμίας τελεσάτω εἰς τὰ ἔργα μ[ὴ
πλεῖον δραχμᾶν πεντήκοντα᾽ αἱρεθ] εὶς
Εὐφράνωρ Δαρδάνου Νεττίδας. ᾿
’ \ id , ’ / γ΄ , e
Evi ἱερέως Ayeotpatou Καρνείου ε-
βδόμᾳ ἐξ ἰκαά δ]ος, ἔδοξε τᾷ βουλᾷ 90
καὶ τῷ δάμῳ, Εὐφράνωρ Δαρδάνου ΝΙετ-
τίδας εἶπε, δεδόσθαι Εὐφράνορι Δαρδάν[ου
Νεττίδᾳ καὶ Εὐθαλιδᾶν τῷ κοινῷ ἐπῖαι-
νέσαι καὶ στεφανῶσαι Σωσικράτη Κλε-
ωὠνύμου Νεττίδαν θαλλοῦ στεφάνῳ 35
ἀναθέμειν δὲ καὶ στάλαν ἐν NetTteila
x ae A fal \ aA oh Ξ
ἐ]ν τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ Διὸς] τοῦ ἸΠατρωΐου.
« ἐ

ls)
St

I found this inscription in the ruins of a church called Agia
Trené, about a quarter of an hour’s distance from the village of
Apolakkia in Rhodes. This village is situated near the sea on
the south-west side of the island (see my Zvravels and Discoveries,
1} 108).

This inscription contains part of two decrees, of which the
first was passed by the κοινόν of the Euthalidai. The upper part
of the stone being wanting, we only know the latter part of this
first decree, from which we learn that a crown had been voted
by the κοινόν to Sosikrates, son of Kleonymos, a Netteian, and
that this honour was to be publicly proclaimed in the usual
manner. We learn further that it was necessary that this decree
should be confirmed by a Boule, ‘senate,’ and Demos, ‘ popular
assembly, to the control of which the Euthalidai were subject.

ON AN UNEDITED RHODIAN INSCRIPTION. 307

The κοινόν therefore appoints Euphranor, son of Dardanos, a
Netteian, with instructions to obtain from the Boulé and Demos
the permission to bestow this crown on Sosikrates with the
usual ἔπαινος or laudatory harangue, and to engrave the decree
on a sfclé and dedicate it in the Hieron of Zeus Patroios in
Netteia.

The second decree passed by the Boulé and Demos, whose
ratification was required, gives the required permission to the
κοινόν of the Euthalidai, and to their representative in this
matter, Euphranor, to honour Sosikrates with an ἔπαινος and
a crown, and to set up a sfelé at Netteia, thus ratifying the
first decree.

This second decree is dated the 27th of the month Karneios,
during the term of office of the hierews Agestratos. The
Euthalidai, whose decree forms the subject of this inscription,
were doubtless one of those religious associations generally
known as Thiasi, Erani, Orgeones, respecting which both Δ].
Foucart and M. Liiders have contributed valuable memoirs.

Rhodes had many such associations, as we know from inscrip-
tions found either in Rhodes itself or in its dependencies. The
tollowing list contains all the Rhodian associations of this kind
known to us from this source.

1. ᾿Αγαθοδαιμονιασταὶ Φιλόνειοι. Foucart, Associations
Réligieuses, p. 230, No. 48.

2. ᾿Αδωνιασταί. From coast of Gulf of Syme, opposite
Rhodes. Jbid. p. 233, No. 56.

3. ᾿Αθαναϊσσταί. Ibid. p. 229, No. 47.

4, ᾿Αθαναϊσταί; Λινδιασταί. Ibid. p. 230, No, 48.

5. ᾿Αλιασταὶ καὶ ᾿Αλιαδαί. Ibid. p. 227, No 46.

6. ᾿Απόλλωνος Στραταγίου [.... κοινοῦ. Ibid. p. 230, No. 48.
7. ᾿Ασκλαπιασταί. Unedited inscription. Kamiros.

8. ᾿Ασκλαπιασταὶ of ἐν Αὐλαῖς. Coast of Gulf of Syme.
Foucart, p. 233, No. 56.

9. ᾿Αφροδεισιασταί. Island of Chalke near Rhodes. did.
p. 232, No. 53. ;

10. Διονυσιαστωί. Ibid. p. 229, No. 43.

11. Διονυσιασταὶ Χαιρημόνειοι. Ibid. p. 230, No. 48.

358 ON AN UNEDITED RHODIAN INSCRIPTION.

12. Διοσαταβυριασταί. Tid. p. 229, No. 47.

13. Διοσαταβυριασταὶ Εὐφρανόρειοι οἱ σὺν ᾿Αθηναίῳ Κνιδίῳ.
ΤΠ p.'229, No. 47.

14. Διοσξεινιασταί. Thid. p. 250, No. 48.

15. Ἑρμαϊσταί. Unedited inscription. Kamiros.

16. Εὐθαλίδαι. Apolakkia inscription. See p. 356, ante.

17. Ἡροειϊσταί. Foucart, Assoc. Rél. p. 233, No. 56.

18. Θιασιτᾶν κοινόν. Unedited inscription. Kamiros.

19. Νακόρειοι. Unedited inscription. Kamiros.

20. Ξουσαριασταί. From Island of Chalké near Rhodes.
Foucart, Assoc. I?él. p. 231, No. 52.

21. Οἰακιασταί. From coast of Gulf of Syme. bid. Ὁ. 233,
No. 56.

22. Παναθαναϊσταί. From Chalké. tid. p. 232, No. 53.

23. Πανιασταί. From Chalké. Ibid. p. 227, No. 46.

24. Πυργανίδαι. Unedited inscription. Kameiros.

25. Σαμοθρακιασταὶ καὶ Λημνιασταί. Lindos. Foucart in
Revue Archéologique, xi. p. 219.

26. Σαμοθρακιασταὶ Μεσόνεοι. Lhid.

27. Σωτηριασταὶ Ἣροϊσταί. From Chalke. Foucart, Assoc.

Rélig., p. 230, No. 49.

The inscriptions which mention the associations in the fore-
going list were all found at Rhodes, with the following exceptions :
Nos. 9, 20, 22, 23, 27, which are from the little island of Chalke.
This little island must, from its contiguity to Rhodes, have
always been one of its dependencies. Nos. 2, 8, 21, are from
the coast of the Gulf of Syme, which must have been part of
the Peraia, subject to Rhodes during the period of its indepen-
dence. It may therefore be assumed that the eight associations
named in these inscriptions from Chalké and the Gulf of Syme
are to be reckoned as Rhodian.

The names of nearly all these associations end in agra or
torat, a termination distinctive of Zhiasd and Erant. No. 19,
Νακόρειοι, may possibly be a Deme, not a Thiasos or Eranos, but
as it occurs in a group of such associations, I prefer to class it with
the rest. The first of the two decrees in our inscription doubtless
contained in the upper portion, now missing, a statement of the

ON AN UNEDITED RHODIAN INSCRIPTION. 359

grounds on which the honour of a crown and an ἔπαινος was
_ bestowed on Sosikrates. In passing such a decree the Euthalidai
followed the procedure usually observed in such religious bodies,
which are generally thought to have been corporations having
the power to administer their property, and to enact decrees and
regulations which their members were bound to observe, pro-
vided such enactments did not contravene the laws of the state.
(See Foucart, Assoc. Rélig. pp. 47, 48, in the appendix to
which the texts of nearly all the extant decrees of this kind are
printed.) On the evidence of these texts M. Foucart adopts the
view maintained by Δ. Caillemer (Le Droit de Société ἃ Athénes,
Paris, 1872, p. 11), that these societies were the absolute masters
of their internal administration. “Les lois ou réglements,”
observes M. Foucart, p. 50, “acceptés par les associds étaient
regardeés par les tribunaux comme obligatoires pour eux, ἃ moins
quil n’y eit contradiction avec la législation publique.” Now
it is clear that at Rhodes this absolute independence of reliyi-
ous associations was not permitted at the time when the
inscription before us was engraved. The first decree appoints
a person to demand the sanction of the decree in honour of
Sosikrates ; the second decree gives the sanction required, which
would be technically called κύρωσις. It is this sanction
which is implied in the expression (lines 13, 14) κυρ[ω]θέντο[ς
δὲ τοῦ ψαφί]σματος.

On turning to a well-known Rhodian decree, published by
Bockh, Corp. Inscript. 2525 ὁ, lines 12-16, we find the same
expression: τύχᾳ ἀγαθᾷ δεδόχθαι τῷ κοινῷ τῷ ᾿Αλιαδᾶν κ[αὶ
“ΑἸλιαστᾶν, κυρωθεισᾶν Tavde τᾶν τιμᾶν, ἐπαινέσαι καὶ στεφανῶ-
σαι, κατιλ. We may hence infer the Haliadai and Haliastai had
no power to put their decree in force till it had been sanctioned
by a higher authority. What was that higher authority? In the
case of the Euthalidai a Bovdy and δῆμος give the necessary
KUpwats. This βουλή and δῆμος we must assume to be either
those of the Deme, Netteia, mentioned in the inscription. or
of the wodus in the territory of which that Deme was situated.
That πόλις was most probably Lindos, and at first sight it
would seem most probable that the sanction of the decree of
the Euthalidai would have been issued from that city. For
Lindos was certainly the most important place in the part of
the island in which Netteia was situated, and probably therefore

360 ON AN UNEDITED RHODIAN INSCRIPTION.

included it in its territory. But there are two objections to
this, first, all the decrees of Lindos have, like those of Ialysos,
in their heading the words ἔδοξε μάστροις καὶ Λινδίοις, not
ἔδοξε τᾷ βουλᾷ καὶ τῷ δάμῳ, as here. Moreover the second
decree as well as the first is to be set up on a ϑδέοίδ in the
Hieron of Zeus Patroios in Netteia, whereas Lindian decrees
are usually set up in the Hieron of Athené at Lindos. I
therefore assume that in the second decree the βουλή and
δῆμος were those of Netteia. That this place was a Deme,
not a city, may be inferred, first because no such city is
mentioned, so far as I know, by Stephanos or any other
writer, and secondly because the ethnic Νεττέδας occurs in a
Lindian inscription published by Foucart, Revue Arciéologique,
N.S. xv. p. 207, in a list of ethnics which seem all to belong
to Demes. In the Rhodian inscription, Bockh, Corp. Inscript.
No, 2525 ὃ, already referred to, the decree of the Haliadai
and Haliastai was probably ratified by the city of Rhodes.

It would seem from the evidence of these two inscriptions
that the religious corporations in Rhodes were subjected to more
state control than in the other Greek cities where we find them
established. This is quite in accordance with other facts in
reference to ritual and other religious matters which we obtain
from the Lindian inscription, Revue Archéologique, N.S., xv.
Ῥ. 207, and from the two inscriptions from Kamiros and Ialysos
published by me in the Transact. of Roy. Soc. Literature, xi.
pp. 435-47. ᾿

Line 14. The ἐπιστάται here mentioned occur in other
Rhodian inscriptions: see the Kamiros inscription published by
me in Zvransact. Roy. Soc. Lit. xi. p. 442; also, Ross, Inseript.
Ined. iii. p. 27, No. 276 ; Revue Archéol. N. 8. xv. p. 209. They
seem to have been a board of commissioners charged with
superintendence of various matters connected with worship.

Line 15. «[apuxes. In the Rhodian decree, Corp. Inscript. 2525 ὃ,
already referred to, we have (epoxdpuxes for the ἀναγόρευσις of
the honorary decree, and such honours are said to be κάρυκτοι.

Line 17. ἐν τῷ ἔπε[ζι]τα συλλέγῳρ The σύλλογοι, or
meetings of Thiasi and Hrani, took place at regular intervals.
See Corp. Inseript. 2525 ὃ, line 60:

ἐν τῷ συλλὸ : Dé é ὶ τῶν συνόδων
τῷ συλλόγῳ ἐν τῷ ἐχομένῳ μηνὶ τῶν συνόδων.

ON AN UNEDITED RHODIAN INSCRIPTION. 361

Line 26. εἰς τὰ ἔργα. These would include engraving the
stclé and setting it up. The cost is not to exceed fifty drachmae,
about £2; this was the usual price of such work.

Line 28. The Evdpavwp here mentioned may have given
his name to the AvocataBupiactal Εὐφρανόρειοι. See ante,
No. 13.

Line 29. Ἐπὶ ἱερέως. This would of course be the Hiereus
of Helios, the usual eponymous magistrate in Rhodian
decrees. ᾿

C. T. NEWTON.

H. S.— VOL. Ii. BB

362

10

—
τ

9

INSCRIPTION FROM KALYMNOS.

INSCRIPTION FROM KALYMNOS.

EP IZ TE®AN H SOOPOYKAEY

ΦΩΝΤΟΣΤΟΥΦΙΛΩΝΙΔΑ
MOEEYAAIZIOY AIMO

NAPXIOIZ NEIK HM ENE
KPATOYANEKHP YEE THN

IAIANOEPENTHNHAONH.

ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΑΝΕΦΩΠΑΡΑ
MENEIAYTH ΤΟ. ΤΗΣ
ΖΩΗΣΑΥΤΗΣ X PONON
ENITOYAYTOY TOIZE NI
NOZEIAQMNANHMOY
Z. PIO®QNKAI. BPIA
ΔΑΣΟΙΔΩΡΟΘΕΟΥΑΝΕ
ΚΗΡΥΞΑΝΕΛΕΎΘΕΡΟΝ
ΑΓΑΘΟΠΟΔΑΚΑΤΑ
TOYZANEAEY ΘΕΡΩ
ΤΙΚΟΥΣΝΟ MOY:

᾿Επὶ Στεφανηφόρου Κλευ-
-φῶντος τοῦ Φιλωνίδα,
M(nvos) Θευδαισίονυ ἄι, Mo-
-ναρχίοις Νείκη Μενε-
-κράτου ἀνεκήρυξε τὴν
ἰδίαν θρεπτὴν Ηδονὴ[ν
ἐλευθέραν ἐφ᾽ ᾧ παρα-
-μενεῖ αὐτῇ τὸ(ν) τῆς

ζωῆς αὐτῆς χρόνον.

᾿Επὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, τοῖς ἐπὶ
Ποσειδῶ, Μ(ηνὸς) Πανήμου
ἕ [Κ]Ἰριοφῶν καὶ []βριά-
δας οἱ Δωροθέου ἀνε-
κήρυξαν ἐλεύθερον
Ἀγαθόποδα κατὰ

τοὺς ἀπελευθερω-

\
TLKOUS VOMOUS

I copied this inscription in 1855 from a marble found in a
garden near the Marina, called Blyko, in the island of Kalymnos,
the ancient Kalymna. On this site formerly stood the Church

‘of Panagia Kalymniotissa,

INSCRIPTION FROM KALYMNOS. 363

In the year 1854 I explored the site of the Temple of
Apollo in that island and discovered there a number of inscrip-
tions, most of which will appear in Part II. of the work on
Greck Inscriptions in the British Museum, of which Part I. was
published in 1874.

The inscription which I have here selected for publication,
and which was not taken away by me from Kalymnos, is one of a
well-known class which relate to the enfranchisement of slaves,
and of which many examples have been found at Delphi and
elsewhere. The forms and conditions of such enfranchisement
varied in different places (See M. Foucart’s article, Apeleutheroi,
in Daremberg, Dictionnaire des Antiquités, where the subject is
very fully treated). On the site of the Temple of Apollo at
Kalymnos I discovered a number of these inscriptions relating
to enfranchisements, most of which are now in the National
Collection, and will be given in the forthcoming Part of Juscrip-
tions in the British Museum. There is no doubt that the inscription
here treated of was taken from the site of the Temple of Apollo
to the church in Kalymnos where I copied it. In nearly all the
Kalymnian inscriptions of this class the slave, θρεπτός, θρέμμα,
is made free on condition that he or she remain in the master’s
service till his death, and in some cases further conditions
are imposed. Such deeds of enfranchisement, like those of
Mantineia in Arkadia, must be regarded as forms of manu-
mission without any religious character (See Foucart, Jnscript.
Grecques in Lebas, Voyage Archéologique, Il. § ὁ, p. 218). The
marbles on which these documents were engraved were usually
placed in the hieron of Apollo or of some other deity, to ensure
the permanence of the record.

The eponymous magistrate in the inscription here published,
as in several other Kalymnian deeds of enfranchisement, is the
Stephanephoros. The first deed is dated the eleventh of the
month Θευδαίσιος, line 3. The mention of this month has a
special value, because it enables me to complete the calendar of
Kalymnian months. I have obtained the other eleven months
partly from other deeds of enfranchisement, and partly from
decrees, all from Kalymnos, and as yet unedited.

The list of the twelve months is as follows: Ἀγριάνιος,
TleSayeitvios, Βαδρόμιος, Ἀρταμίτιος, Θευδαίσιος, Ὑακίνθιος,
Καρνεῖος, Πάναμος, ᾿Ελάφριος. Ἀλσεῖος, Καῖσαρ Σεβαστός,

BB 2

364 INSCRIPTION FROM KALYMNOS.

Τιβέριος. The eight first months in this list are identical with
months in the calendars of Rhodes and her colonies in Sicily.
Of the month Ἀλσεῖος one other instance occurs in a Koian
inscription published by M. Hauvette-Besnault (Bulletin de
Correspondance Hellénique, v. Ὁ. 223), who states that this
month also occurs on an unedited inscription from the Sporades.
See also did. vi. p. 339, where Ἀλσείου is given as a stamp on
the handle of an amphora. There is at present no evidence
to show in what order the Kalymnian months succeeded each
other.

Βαδρόμιος, as we learn from another unedited Kalymnian
inscription, was coincident with the Koian month Καφίσιος
(lines 3, 4).

Μοναρχίοις. The Monarchia must have been a festival at
Kalymna. We find the Monarchos as an eponymous magistrate
at Kos (see Ross, IJnscript. Inéd. 11., p. 60, No. 175;
Rayet, Inseript. Inédites des Sporades, Part 1., p. 7; Bullet. de
Correspond. Hellén. v., p. 239) and the heading ἐπὶ M, which
we find on most of the Kalymnian deeds of enfranchisement
already referred to, is probably the abbreviation of ἐπὶ Movapyou.
The great physician of Kos, Hippokrates, was, according to his
biographer, Soranus, born in the month ‘Aypidvios, μοναρχοῦντος
ABpidda (Soranus Ephes. ap. Physic. et Med. Minores, Ideler, I.
p. 253). The functions of the Monarchos were probably
analogous to those of the βασιλεὺς ἄρχων at Athens and the
βασιλεύς at Megara and elsewhere. On all these magistrates
some of the dignity of the ancient βασιλεύς probably devolved.

ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ. Here line 10 begins the second deed of
enfranchisement executed under the same Stephanephoros, on
the seventh day of the month Panamos.

τοῖς ἐπὶ Ilocedd. Here we must supply Movapyiois, of
which the M preceding Πανήμου may be the abbreviation,
though I should prefer to read it μίηνος) as in line 3. .

Ο, Τὶ NEwTon.

Pay Ay δὲ ,
ra eal

aT bi)

δ ““ ι
᾿ Ὁ Ny ut ων
A "

Γ BRE K A®ROKORS
yp OxREIE POTANper

π
OTIADIK OSE VOIKRINOPOITOA μ᾽ ΚΟ ζς κέν ΟΜΝ pEKE! ETI
ἷ ΣΡ δ ΛΑ δ ΈΡΙ INIAD ee ae
NOTOIRFOILORM/OpyUdhtON
RA SRERKo| KAT OMA WIRY Tol DE NIEAPOX O1BODAS
BIE TOU RAND COIs ERG MEAT ΘΙ ΚΝ ΑΙ τοῦ

KAITOS) PADMUIOUTOI SRY “|
τ a) Ἃ ee
K K@RAPOSHENIDEBE TENRINKAITO
epee \> Ra ees AD POTONGRONE RAN
ἌΣ TIDINKKO IKOIDIEATAT BE
(ey ee ee

ONAITIRNEO!

To face p. 365.

ON TWO INSCRIPTIONS FROM OLYMPIA. 365

ON TWO INSCRIPTIONS FROM OLYMPIA.

In a paper read at the R. Accademia dei Lincei in Rome
IT communicated the result of my studies upon three of the
bronze inscriptions (Nos. 362, 56, 363) found at Olympia, and
published in the Archdologische Zeitung. Amongst other in-
scriptions from the same place recently published in the last
number of the same periodical there are two (Nos. 382, 383)
deserving the same attention, and demanding it all the more
since Professor Kirchhoff in giving them to the public has
declared himself unable to divine their meaning. Here I
submit to the judgment of the readers of this journal my
contribution to the question. My studies are only founded
on the facsimile taken from a rubbing and published in the
Archdologische Zeitung, together with Dr. Purgold’s account of
the material condition of the two monuments. I have thought
it necessary to give my readers a phototypic copy of the facsimile
itself, reduced to smaller proportions. Further particulars will
be found in the Archdiologische Zeitung, 1881, pp. 78 seg.

No. 382.

In opposition to Dr. Purgold’s opinion, Professor Kirchhoff
maintains that this inscription, besides being mutilated at its
upper end, has even lost letters both on the right and left sides
of the lines. This is an error, as clearly appears from the
reading of the text; the inscription is really fragmentary
only at its upper end. I suppose it was this initial error

1 Tserizioni greche di Olimpia e di Ithaka. Roma, 1881.

366 ON TWO INSCRIPTIONS FROM OLYMPIA.

that misled Professor Kirchhoff so far as to suggest to him the
following quite unintelligible reading :—

.. Toe G Ka Oeoxodor.O..... € αὐτοῖ καὶ χρημί(άγτοις, ὄ τι
[αυτ]ῶ γα εἴη ποτ᾽ ἀλάθειαν. αἱ δ᾽ ἀ(λ)λότρια ποιοῖτο (πε)ν(τ)α-
κατίας κα δαρχμ(ὰ)ς ἀποτίνοι κατὰ Féxactov θεθ(τὴ)ὴμὸν, ὃ τι
ἀδίκως ἔχοι και πο(ι)οῖτο ἀδίκως γα. γνῶμα δέ κ᾽ εἴη τἰάρωμα.
ὄ τι δε διαια δίφυια τὸ δίκαιον τόδε κα θεοκόλος ἐποποι-
άλοι δαμιωργία τὸν δᾷ[ μ]70[ν] ἀποξηλέοι κ᾿ ἀπὸ μαντείας Tot
δὲ νειεαιογοιθοδας κ᾽ εἴη τοῖς χρημάτοις" OLYEVLOLAOLKLNL-
KQLS ἢ μήλοις καὶ τοῖς ὑπαδυγίοις τοῖς αὐτῶ.

My reading is as follows :—

τῷζε κα θεοκόλῳ θ[ ὠρα]ς (2), ἐαυτῷ καὶ χρημί(ώ)τοις, ὄτι [κ᾽
αὐτ]ῶ γᾷ εἴη ποτ᾽ CLR TRE δ᾽ ἃ ἰρλλότρια ποιοῖτο, (πε)ν(τ)α-
κατίας κα δαρχμ(ὰ)ς ἀποτίνοι κατὰ βέκαστον θέθ(μι)ον ὄ τι
ἀδίκως ἔχοι, καὶ πωλοῖτο ἄδικος γᾶ. γνῶμα δέ κ᾽ εἴη τἰαρομά(ν)-
τίορ. (ab δὲ) δίφυια τὸ δίκαιον τέδε κα θεοκόλος ἐπ(ιὴ) π(οι)οῖ ἄλ-
(λ)ῳ, δαμιωργία τὸνδ᾽ ἄλ[λ]ο(ν) ἀποξη(λ)έοι κ᾽’ ἀπὸ μαντείας,
τῷ δ᾽ év(v)éa (τ)όκοι θώρας x’ εἴη τοῖς χρημάτοις (τ)οῖ(:) ἐν τ(ᾷ)
οἰκί(ᾳ) καὶ σεμέλοις καὶ τοῖς ὑπαδυγίοις τοῖς αὐτῶ.

The inscription is full of gross mistakes, not even always to
be accounted for by the similarity of letters :—

Line 1. XPEMATOINZ for XPEMATOIZ.

Line 3. AIAOTPIA for AAOTPIA, a most frequent writing
in these inscriptions; the superfluous | is not written instead of
A, but is simply due to a confusion with the foregoing Al. At
the end of the line we remark NIAK for NTAK -preceded by
two strange signs taking the place of NE. I conjecture that
Efi had been written by mistake, and these signs are the result
of a rude attempt to correct the error. A similar correction 15
found in inscription 389, line 8, where the sign A is an A which
had been wrongly written as A.

Line 3. AAPXMKZ for AAPXMAZ ; Ἐβδ form δαρχμάς is
already known as belonging to this ae other dialects. See
inscription 56. OEO@TMON. Instead of the well-known
Doric form τεθμός we have θεθτμόν, followed by 6 τι, and with
a peculiar meaning, while in inscription No. 365 we remark
with some surprise and incredulity the Ionic-Attic form (θ)εσμός.
The form θεθμός is already known from an inscription at Tegea?;
but here the neuter pronoun shows that in the certainly erroneous

1 card θεθμόν. Ap, Cauer, Delectis, No, 2.

ON TWO INSCRIPTIONS FROM OLYMPIA, 367

writng BE@TMON we must recognise the form θέθμιον, repre-
senting the more usual τέθμιον, and already known froin the
Locrian inscription of Naupaktos.t T is wrongly written instead
of J, and IM instead of MI: as we socn shall see, trausposition
of letters is not infrequent in these inscriptions.

Line 4. MOAOITO is right as it stands, an not to be
corrected into NOIOITO, as Kirchhoff has done. FA here, as
well as in line 2, is not the equivalent cf ye, as Kirchhoti
seems to think, but of γῆ, and must be read ya.

Lines 4, 5. TIAPOMAOTIOP for TIAPOMANTIOP.

Line 5. EAIAIA for AIAE. Here we find the same kind
of error as I have mentioned above and already noticed in
inscription No. 56, namely transposition of letters, a fact leading
me to the supposition that we lave before us ancient copies
of more ancient laws, originally written βουστροφηδόν. Just
as we found there [AAE instead of AIAE, and TIANATPIA
instead of TAINATPAI, so we sce here a transposition of four
letters in βουστροφηδόν fashion, EAIA for AIAE, the error
being increased by the repetition of the two last letters IA.
So, too, in the following inscription we shall find EBENEOI
for ENEBOI! and AINAKOIKOI for ΔΙΑΝΙΚΟΙ.

Line 6. ENOMOI is evidently a wrong writing, to be classed
together with the similar ones which have been found in in-
scription No. 362, in the verb ποιέω and its compounds.* The
verb here is ἐπιποιέω, as we see from inscription No. 362, where
we find the same phrase ἐπιποιεῖν τὰ δίκαια. ΑΒ to the form,
it might be ἐπιποέοι if compared with the ἐπιποεόντων of
inscription No. 362; but if we remember the preceding
NOIOITO of our inscription, we must conclude it was
ἐπιποιοῖ. Here the similarity of sound will easily account
both for the error and the omission.

— AAO! for AAAOI, a rather comnion mode of writing
in these inscriptions; thus in inscription No. 303, line 2, we
find AAO for AAAO, and in the Elean inscription of C. I. Gr.
No. 11, we have ANAAOIE for ΑΛΛΑΛΟΙ͂Σ, and even AA
for AAAA. At the end of the line we read again AAOI, but
as Dr. Purgold says that the last letter is not certain, what was

really written was probably AAON, for AAAON, as the sense

1 καττὸ θέθμιον. Ap. Cauer, Delectus, 2 See Iscriziont greche di Olimpia,
No. 91 8, 21. p. 8 (ἐπενποι, ἐπενπετω, ενποι).

368 ON TWO INSCRIPTIONS FROM OLYMPIA.

requires. As for the blank space, we see something very
similar in inscription No. 223. There is no interruption in
the text; what is written in this and the following lines
forms a perfectly regular and intelligible sentence; ncthing is
wanted. We may suppose that the blank was the end of a line
in the original, and that for some reason the engraver thought
another section of the text was beginning, and so began a new
line in the copy. Facts of this kind (if there is any need to
explain them in these ancient inscriptions) are easy to be
accounted for in copies; they are frequent in the ancient papyri
also, especially in those of Herculaneum.

Line 7. ANOFEEEOI! had been written for ANOFEAEO!,
and the error is corrected ; compare inscription No. 363, ἀπὸ τῶ
βωμῶ ἀποξβηλέοιάν xa, and inscription No, 303, κ᾿ ἀπὸ τῶ Bayo
ἀπορηΐλε..

— ENIEA can hardly be considered as a dialectic.form of
ἐννέα ; it is, im my opinion, a mere error, consisting perhaps in
the 1 standing for an unfinished N, or rather in a transposition
ἐνιέα for εἰνέα ; compare Homer’s εἴνατος, Herodotus’ εἰνακόσια,
and in inscription No, 56, ἐπείμβοι for ἐπέμβοι.

Line 8. JOKENTAIAOIKIAI for TOIZENTAIOIKIAI,
where we see an erroneous repetition of the A in TAIA, since
the letter A is only an incomplete A, and cannot be a 8, which
letter (as well as P) in our inscription has always the form Db.
The reading IAIA[I], supposing the omission of 1, is excluded
by this fact. Equally incomplete are the T and 2 in ΤΟΙ͂Σ.
In OIKIAI we see the same erroneous substitution of A for A,
as in the first line in XPEMATOIZ. The expression itself
is perfectly right and very ancient; compare Hesiod, Op. 405,
χρήματα δ᾽ ἐν οἴκῳ πάντ᾽ ἄρμενα ποιήσασθαι.

The meaning of the brachylogic expression ἀλλότρια ποιοῖτο
is rendered perfectly clear by the preceding words and by the
already well-known sense of ποιοῦμαι. The preceding con-
ditional clause beginning with ὅτι wants a xa (κ᾽) in the lacuna,
and there is room for it; the same conditional use of ὅτι is found
in the Locrian inscription of Naupaktos (2, 15), ὅτε κα μὴ
ἀμφοτάροις δοκέῃ.

The word θέθμιον is to be noted for the peculiar meaning it
‘seems to have in this place. It reminds one of Demeter Thes-
mophores and of the most ancient meaning of θεσμός, originally

ON TWO INSCRIPTIONS FROM OLYMPIA. 369

referring to the legal division and possession of landed property.
It may be a matter of doubt whether θέθμιον means here a
certain legally determined portion of land, as would be the case
with the expression constitutio agri or vineae in the Latin gro-
matici, or rather the legal document or title on which the
owner’s claims to the property are founded. I think this last is
the real meaning in our case; at any rate it is the nearest
to the common acceptation of the word. ἔχειν has not its
transitive, but its intransitive meaning here, as also in the
καλιτέρως ἔχην of the following inscription.

The task of judging whether the possession of the land
claimed by the θεοκόλος is legal and real, and of sentencing him
to the fine, if not, is given to the ἰαρόμαντις (γνῶμα δέ x’ εἴη
tiapowavtiop). I think that the compound has the same
meaning as the simple μάντις in other inscriptions. In in-
scription No. 363, which I have recently discussed, the μάντεις
are entrusted with the duty of excluding from the temple
those who violate a certain compact of friendship. All the
μάντεις being attached to the ἱερόν and connected with the ἱερά,
each of them was of course a ἱερόμαντις ; and it can hardly be
supposed that there was one particular μάντις who could be
distinguished by that title from the others. On the other hand
the Olympian μάντεις ave always mentioned in the plural
by Pausanias, as well as in the ancient Elean inscriptions, and
in the later ones containing the list of the persons attending
the Διὸς ἱερά. I think then that the meaning of fapouavtis
in this place is a collective one; very likely the duty is not
assigned to one μάντις in particular, but to the whole council of
the μάντεις, this council being designated by the name /apo-
μαντις. 1 have already made elsewhere some remarks on the
use of these collective nouns in this dialect.) A fact of the
same kind is met with in inscription No. 362, where the singu-
lar ᾿Ελλανοζίκας would seem to refer to the whole council of
the ᾿Ελλανοζίκαι.

In the expression ἐν(ν)έα τόκοι ΘΟΡΑΣ, line 7, the word
ΘΟΡΑΣ cannot possibly have a suitable meaning as it stands.
The nearest word for the sense required would be χώρας or
φορᾶς. The last could scarcely give an intelligible meaning
when preceded by τόκοι; χώρας would suit much better; the

1 Tseriziont greche di Olimpia, p. 7.

370 ON TWO INSCRIPTIONS FROM OLYMPIA.

meaning, ‘ produce of cultivated land, being at any rate quite
intelligible, and in full accordance with the context of the
whole inscription. Thus we learn that the θεοκόλος referred
to is entitled to enjoy nine crops from the land here mentioned.
As for @OPAZ instead of XOPAZ, we might easily suppose
it to be an error in an inscription such as this is, where errors
abound; but it seems to me very likely that the same word ©
written in the same way is to be recognised in the, lacuna of
the first lie, where the restitution @(OPA)Z may be justified
by the tact that it perfectly fits the space, and that what fol-
lows there, ἐαυτῷ καὶ χρημάτοις, finds its counterpart in the
similar expression we have here. The substitution of one aspi-
rate for another, is a fact which has been considered as belonging
to the Aeolic dialect, and it is not unheard of in the Dorie.
In the monuments of these dialects now in existence, this kind
of substitution is only represented by a limited number of
sporadic facts, not sutficient to estabush a rule as characteristic
in the dialect. No other instance that I know of can be quoted
in this dialect of the change of y into @; the converse change
of @ into y is exemplified in the well-known dpwya for
ὄρνιθα used by Pindar, as well as in the Aeolic πλήχω for
πλήθω.

I will not venture to guess what was given to the θεοκόλος
mentioned in the first line; it seems at any rate that it was
something in connexion with the χώρα (so many τόκοι
perhaps 2), for the use of himself and his household. The
expression ἑαυτῷ καὶ χρημάτοις is of a pretty common type,
and has its paraliel in other inscriptions, mostly of προξενία,
where certain rights are given to a certain person, to him and
to his household, αὐτῷ καὶ χρήμασι. The form χρημώτοις is
one of the many instances of a well-known fact belonging
to this as well as to other dialects.” The same expression is
used again at the end of the inscription, but in a new and
remarkably enlarged form; ἑαυτῷ is left out, and what is com-
monly understood by the simple word χρήματα is explained
with all its main particulars, namely τοῖς χρημάτοις τοῖς ἐν
τᾷ οἰκίᾳ Kal σεμέλοις Kal τοῖς ὑπαδυγίοις τοῖς αὐτῶ. Here
ὑπαδυγίοις is written correctly, and in accordance with the

1" Cauer, Delectus, Nos. 91,92, 98, &ce. word ἀγώνοις in inscription No. 4
2. See Kirchhoff’s remarks on the (4rch. Zeit. 1875, p. 185).

ON TWO INSCRIPTIONS FROM OLYMPIA. 371

phonetic laws of the dialect, for ὑποζυγίοις. In inscription
No. 363, the same word occurs erroneously written YIN-
AAYKIOIOIZ. But the most remarkable word in the whole
inscription is σεμέλοις, which is quite new. It is hardly possible
to trace it back to θεμελίοις or θεμέθλοις ; no other imstance
has been found in this dialect of the Spartan σ = 6; and a
distinction between οἰκία and θεμέλια is out of place in the
passage. On the other hand, since the ὑποζύγεα are mentioned,
it seems most natural to expect that the servants or slaves
should be mentioned too. Indeed it is well known that
the servants are often included in the meaning of the word
'χρήματα ; but the same may be said of the ὑποζύγια also.
My view is that we see here one of the words especially
belonging to the dialect, like ἰμάσκω, θαρρῆν, μαστραία, and
others revealed by these inscriptions ; and that σέμελος means
a slave, and corresponds to the Latin faiulus. The Latin word
has been already considered (Curtius, Gr. Efym.) as belonging
to the same family of words to which the Greek θέμεθλον, θεμέ-
Nuov belong. How far this is true I will not discuss here ; at all
events this new Hlean word σέμελος will prove a remarkable
acquisition for the question. But what is more remarkable
is that, besides the Latin famulus and the Elean σέμελος, we
have another word of the same kind in the Phrysian ζέμελεν,
registered by Hesychius with the meaning βάρβαρον ἀνδρά-
mooov. The meaning answers so exactly to what is expected in
our inscription, and the similarity of the two words 15 so great,
that we must consider σέμελος (σέμελον 2) as the Elean form of
the same word the Phrygian form of which was, according to Hesy-
chius, ζέμελεν. The coincidence is very easy to explain, since
we all know that a large proportion of the slaves sold in the
Greek market were Phrygians, and that the name ®pv& was
often used as an abusive equivalent of slave. One of the
Inscriptions found at Olympia gives us some instances of the
exotic names borne by slaves in that district.1_ Little attention
need be paid to the absence of the article in a dialect like this
where we see that the use of the article is far from being in
accordance with the common rules of classic Greek. But in our
ease the language of the inscription might be supported by

1 Inscription No. 225, τὸν ᾿Αποσφίγ- ᾿Αγέλα θυγάτηρ, and others. I give
yas (ἢ) γόνον. . . . Πιτθω[σ]υνέφα (?) Kirchhoff’s reading.

372 ON TWO INSCRIPTIONS FROM OLYMPIA.

some good instances in classic authorities (See Kiihner, Ausf.
Gramm. 11. 528). The notion of a slave being so connected
with that of the οἰκία that slaves are commonly called οἰκέται,
the sense is the same-as if the words were τοῖς χρημάτοις καὶ
σεμέλοις τοῖς ἐν τᾷ οἰκίᾳ.

We remark the absence of the article in δαμιωργία (line 6),
an omission which is not unfrequent in these inscriptions. In-
scription 362 has a δαμιωργία, ὁ γρόφευς, but πατριὰν, γενεὰν,
"Edravotixas, μέγιστον τέλος. It is possible that in ἄδικος ya
(line 4) the article was left unwritten on account of a crasis ;
thus in inscription 862 the pronominal ὁ (ὁ) was left out before
᾿Ολυμπίᾳ, and I accordingly read ᾿Ωλυμπίᾳ.

The inscription, like most of the same kind, belongs to a period
when rhotacism was only sporadically represented in writing.
We find it here in only one instance, ἐαρομάντιορ, just as in
inscription No. 363 the only instance is μάντιερ. What is new
and most important is that we see here the end of the period
when I (ζ) was usually written instead of A, as it constantly is
in inscription No, 362, and the beginning of a new orthography.
The new rule has been generally observed in this inscription
with only two exceptions, viz, in the first line, where the
engraver wrote tovge for towe and left it uncorrected, and in
the fifth, where he began to write I (not T, as Purgold says),
but perceived his error in time, and finished the letter as a
A (δίκαιον).

The quantity and quality of the errors in our inscription
confirm me in the opinion that we must consider it as an
ancient copy of a more ancient inscription, which was written
βουστροφηδόν, and with I instead of A. I have already
remarked that this is the case with inscription No. 56, and I
think it is the case with the following one, No. 383, also.

The inscription being only a fragment, and essential. parts
being wanting, the reconstruction of the whole sense is im-
possible. Conjecture cannot have any serious value, since we
know so very little of the θεοκόλοι, of their duties and rights ;
and we now see that they are spoken of in connection with
landed property, income, and the like, whereas previously we
only had some notion of them in connection with sacrifices and
hieratic offices. I hope that some light may come from other yet
unpublished Olympian inscriptions. Amongst those which have

ON TWO INSCRIPTIONS FROM OLYMPIA. 873

been already published, a very old one (No. 308), written βουστρο-
φηδόν, but unfortunately reduced to a small fragment, presents
the word ya in close proximity to the word θεοκόλος. We read

/ a
εν ὄρτιρ Ka TM θεοκόλ[ω....
... Ζὶ Ὀλυνπίῳ γᾶ tap...

It may be supposed that besides their hieratic offices, the
θεοκόλοι were administrators (shall we say tenants?) of the
landed property belonging to the temple, and perhaps landowners
themselves. The word itself, when compared with the meaning of
the Latin colere, is rather suggestive of such anidea. Atany rate
we have here a fragment of a law regulating the relations between
the θεοκόλοι as to matters of this kind. The law seems to
define in what limits and on what conditions a θεοκόλος can
ἐπιποιεῖν ἄλλῳ a certain δίκαιον mentioned in the lost part of
the inscription ; what this δίκαιον was or could be we are unable
to guess ; it looks like a kind of loan for which a certain estate
belonging to the receiver should be mortgaged. If it should be
shown that the estate did not legally and really belong to him,
he was to be sentenced to a fine of 500 drachmae for each title
or document which proved irregular or unlawful, and the un-
justly possessed land was to be sold. The sentence was to
be pronounced by the ἱερόμαντις, or, possibly, by the council of
the μάντεις. But the θεοκόλος was allowed to accept this kind
of δίκαιον only once, or to a certain extent; if doubled or repeated
the receiver was to be punished by exclusion from the μαντεία,
and the giver was entitled to enjoy nine crops off the land for
his own household, servants, and working animals.

No. 383.

This inscription contains a fragment of a law, of which the last
lines only are preserved. The law was engraved on several plates
of bronze, fixed with nails on the wall; the engraver had already
begun to engrave KA in the first line on the last plate when he
thought fit to leave the space clear for the nails, and transferred
the beginning of the line lower down.

Professor Kirchhoff’s reading runs as follows :—

.... «a θεαρὸς εἴη. ai δὲ βενέοι ἐν tiapot βοΐ κα θοάδ(δ᾽οι
καὶ κοθάρσι τελείαι καὶ τὸν θεαρὸν evtaxTat. ai δέ τις παρ τὸ

374 ON TWO INSCRIPTIONS FROM OLYMPIA.

γράφος δικάδ(δ)οι, ἀτελής κ᾽ εἴη a δίκα, ad δέ Ka ξράτρα a
δαμοσία τελεία εἴη δικάδίδγωσα. τῶν δέ κα γραφέων ὄτι δοκέοι
καλ(λ)ιτέρως ἔχην ποτ(τ)ὸν θ(ε)ὸν ἐξωγρέων κα(ὶ) ἐνποιῶν σὺν
βωλᾷ (π)εντακατίων aFNaveos καὶ δάμοι πληθύοντι δινάκοι.
κοι δέ κα (ἔὴν τρίτον αἴ τι ἐνποιοῖ ait ἐξαγρέοι.

This being a thoroughly wrong reading and- punctuation, no
wonder that no interpretation could be given by Professor
Kirchhoff. The inscription must be read as follows :—

.... ka θεαρὸς εἴη. αἱ δ᾽ ἐ(νέβ)οι ἐν τἰαρῷ, βοΐ κα θωάδοι

\ , 7, \ A a ) ΄ ᾽ ΄
καὶ κοθάρσι τελείᾳ, καὶ τῶν θεαρῶν ἐντάχί(θ)αι. αἱ δέ τις Tap

Ν ΄ ΄ Σ / ’ ” ’ ΄ > , ΄ > /

τὸ γράφος δικάδοι, ἀτελής κ᾽ εἴη a δίκα. a δέ Ka Fpatpa a δαμοσία
τελεία εἴη δικάδωσα τῶνδέ κα γραφέων ὄ TL δοκέοι καλιτέρως
ἔχην ποτ(τ)ὸν θ(ε)ὸν ἐξαγρέ(η)ν κα(ὶ) ἐνποι(ῆ)ν σύν βωλᾷ (π)εν-
τακατίων AFrXavéws καὶ δάμῳ πληθύοντι. δι(ανι)κῷ δέ κα m(a)v
τρίτον αἴ τι ἐνποιοῖ ait ἐξαγρέοι.

In my discussion of inscription No. 56, I remarked the
curious forms ee: Bot, ενεβείτ]ω, e8or, and explained the two
last as errors for ἐπεμβέτω, ἐπέμβοι. Here we find eBeveor ἐν
τἰαρῷ, corresponding to what we read there ἐπείμβοι ἐν tia[pov]
according to my supplement, which is now confirmed, with the
only difference that we now have a dative, which is rather odd,
since in another Elean inscription (No. 4) we find ἐν τὸ ἰαρὸν.
From a comparison with inscription No. 56, it is evident that
in our eBeveot we must recognise a transposition of letters such
as we have already found in Nos. 56 and 382, and read ἐνέβοι.
BENE was written instead of ENEB. As we know that even in
this dialect there is no such form as βέοι, we must suppose that
the superfluous E was considered by the writer as belonging to δέ.
The consequence seems to be that ἐνέβοι is the optative of a
verb whose imperative is ἐνεβέ[τ]ω, and that this last need
not be corrected into ἐπεμβέ[τ]ω, as I did; and moreover that
eBot only wants to be completed with the preposition required
for its meaning in that place, and we must read there as here
[ἐν]έβοι. All this, if correct, would lead us to admit that the
verb βῶ was commonly used with a prothetic ε im the dialect ;
and if so we must consider ἐπείμβοι as an error instead of
ἐπε(νέ) Bot, which is not unlikely, since both the 1 and the M are
very far from being unquestionable. From the many compounds
with ἐν in these inscriptions this would be the only instance of

ON TWO INSCRIPTIONS FROM OLYMPIA. 375

εἰν substituted for ἐν; and as to the M preceding the labial,
though organically regular, it is by no means regular in these
inscriptions, where N is commonly used in such cases. If we
exclude the hypothesis of a prothetic e, one might assume a
ease of svarabhakti, or epenthesis, which is exemplified in this
dialect in inscription No. 306, where we read pavaciws for
μνασίως, Σαλαμώναι for Σαλμώναι (compare G. Meyer, 7.
Gram. 92), but it may be objected that this never occurs with
the verb ἐνποιέω, which is frequently found in these in-
scriptions.

GBOAAO!I. Since the usual meaning of the verb θοάξω
cannot be adapted to this place, I think we must assume a verb
θωάξω, hitherto unknown, as is the case with other words in
these inscriptions, but regular in form and clear in its etymology,
and giving a very appropriate meaning. I trace it back to θωή,
punishment, expiation. The word @eéva is used in a remarkable
old Locrian inscription, διπλῆ Fou θών᾽ ἔστω. But the form θωή
is the origin of our verb θωάζω, which is here employed in con-
nexion with the mention of a sacrifice. It is perhaps not
irrelevant to note the gloss of Kyrilles, θόη δὲ λέγεται ἡ
θυσία, where perhaps θωή may be recognised with the meanmg
of an expiatory sacrifice. At any rate here @wafw evidently has
the intransitive sense of to atone, as is clear from the fact that
not only the sacrifice of an ox, but even a κάθαρσις τελεία, 15
emphatically required. Κοθάρσι for καθάρσει is a regular
dialectic form ; see Meister, in Curtius, Studien, iv. 373, 385.

ENTAXTAI stands here for ἐντετάχθαι, and with the same
value as the imperative evterayOw. The absence of the re-
duplication may be considered as an omission of the engraver,
who in passing from one line to the other left out two letters,
ET; but it may also be explained as a dialectic fact, another
instance of which recurs, as I think, in inscription No. 306, where

συνθέν stands for συντεθέν.1

1 Kirebhoff’s reading and punctua-
tion of this inscription are evidently
wrong in some parts. I take the op-
portunity of communicating my own
reading: ΣΞυνθὲν Α[ἰ]θέρων[α τῷ] Aixua-
νορι παρ Tap yap Tap ἐν Σαλαμώνᾳ πλέ-
θρων ὀκτὼ καὶ δέκα φάρην κριθᾶν μανασίως

δύο καὶ Fikats ἀλφιωμένωρ. αἱ δὲ λίποι,

Some instances of the same fact

λυσάστω τῶ διφυίω. πεπάστω τὸν πάντα
χρόνον. There is an erroneous repeti-
tion of IO in AAPIOLOMENOP. Nobody
will be astonished at the participle
being constructed with reference to the
measure rather than to the barley ; facts
of this kind are frequent in every
spoken and vulgar language; it is

376 ON TWO INSCRIPTIONS FROM OLYMPIA.

(very common in modern Greek, and not infrequent, it seems, in
the ancient spoken dialects) were already known; see G. Meyer,
Gr. Gram. 547. As for ται instead of θαι, there are instances
of verbal forms in the dialect where @ is substituted for 7, as
n the above-mentioned inscription, No. 306, we find λυσάστω,
πεπάστω, and in inscription No, 313 τιμώστων, but in our case
it can only be considered as an error, since we find y before it,
while the original « ought to have remained, if really such a sound
as is represented by τ had followed, more especially as we
know what wirwtai the Eleans were. The verb ἐντάσσω is here
constructed with a genitive, just as the simple taco, and as
ἐνποιέω (τῶνδε γραφέων) in the next lines: the meaning is
that the offender, after performing the expiatory ceremony, may
take his seat in the temple amongst the thearov.

The comparative adverb καλιτέρως is far from the common
use, but this is not more astonishing in a dialect than the
Homeric κακώτερος, ἄς. Perhaps the single δ is right here.
καλι shows, in my opinion, that the usual form καλλίων (καλίων)
existed in the dialect; it is just possible that the other ter-
mination was only used for the adverb.

ONON is evidently an error. I perfectly agree with
Professor Kirchhoff in the very probable restitution θ(ε)όν.
Here ΠῚ has been written instead of E, while in the following
line we find the converse error E instead of N (πεντακατίων)-
We have already noticed that rudely corrected errors of the
same kind may be detected in the preceding inscription, line 2,
in the two strange signs representing the NE.

To put a point after δικάδωσα, as Professor Kirchhoff does,
is to destroy utterly every vestige of meaning in the sentence.

even a rather frequent and well-known
usage with Greek and Latin poets,
The verb ἀλφιόω corresponds to what
in the Attic dialect would be ἀλφιτόω
(comp, διαλφιτόω in Aristoph. Nub.),
and is based on the known shortened
form ἄλφι for ἄλφιτον. The compact
is that Aichmanor cedes to Aitheron
the perpetual possession of a land
placed in Salmone, of the extent of
18 plethra, on condition that from
its produce Aitheron shall pay yearly
(pdpny, viz. φέρειν) to Aichmanor 22

measures (μανᾶσίως = μνασίω5) of barley
already reduced to ἄλφιτον. If he fails
to do that, he must redeem himself
(from the right the law gives to the
ereditor on his person) by paying
double. There can be no doubt on the
reading SYN@EN, the letters being
perfectly clear and preserved ; the par-
ticiple is perfectly in accordance with
the infinitive φάρην ; but then its
meaning must be ‘it has been agreed
that,’ &c., namely the meaning of συν-
τεθέν.

ON TWO INSCRIPTIONS FROM OLYMPIA. 377

The same may be said of reading, as the same scholar does
éEaypéwv, ἐνποιῶν, which is absolutely impossible, the infini-
tive being strictly required by the sense. It is evident that
ΕΞΑΓΡΕΟΝ, ENMOION is an erroneous writing due per-
haps to the local or personal pronunciation of the long ἡ sound
in these verbal terminations; however it may be, the restitution
of ἐξαγρέην, ἐνποιῆν is beyond doubt, these being the regular
forms in the dialect. The case of additions or suppressions to
be made by competent anthority in a law, convention, &c., is
contemplated in other inscriptions; see C. I. Gr. No, 2556,
sub fine; in inscription No. 2557 of the same collection we
read: ἐὰν δέ τι φαίνηται ὑμῖν προσθεῖναι ἡ ἀφελέν, εὐχα-
ριστῶμες; comp. Vischer in Rhein. Museum, xxvi. (1871),
Ρ. 7].

ΑΕΛΑΝΕΟΣ is a word unknown to myself as well as to
Professor Kirchhoff. We should hardly expect an adverb here ;
the form in my opinion can only be that of a genitive, and the
word itself the name of a month, which we must add to the very
few names already known in the Elean calendar. Perhaps it
was the month when a general meeting of the council and
assembly took place, more especially consecrated to the dis-
cussion or revision of former laws. A similar definition we find
in the well-known inscription of Dreros:—és τὰν βωλὰν τοῦ
Κομνοκαρίου ἡ τοῦ Ἁλιαίου Without the mention of the
month or of the 500 we find Bwrav καὶ δᾶμον πλαθύοντα (not
πληθύοντα as here) in inscription No. 223.

AINAKOIKOI. The most evident error here is the repeti-
tion of the letters KOI; but there is more than that. It is
scarcely necessary to prove that the existence of such a verb as
δινάκω connot easily be admitted, both on account of its radical
element, whose known meaning would be quite impossible here,
and of its form, which at least ought to be -σκω. The subject
here is the voting: how many votes are required for a proposal
to prevail; and we see that one-third of the votes is required in
order that the Fpatpa on that subject could be τελεία. A
similar expression is used to secure the same object at the end of
the already-mentioned Locrian inscription, skilfully illustrated
by Professor Kirchhoff? πληθὺν δὲ νικῆν. This leads us to
discover in AINAKOI one of those transpositions of letters we

1 Hermann in Philo/ogus, ix. 173. 2 Philolog. xiii. 1, sqq.

H. S.—VOL. 11. 16,

378 ON TWO INSCRIPTIONS FROM OLYMPIA.

have already found so often in these inscriptions. ΔΙΝΑΚΟΙ is
written instead of AIANIKO!, with the omission of one J,
which can be easily explained—the complete transposition of three
letters would have given us AITNAKOI, and it seems that one
of the I’s was left out. A more complicated transposition, but
with no letter left out, would give NIKAAOI, in regard to
which I may say that the existence of a verb νικάζω in the
dialect is perfectly possible.

Again we see an error in TIN. Professor Kirchhoff’s resti-
tution EN may be supported by the above instance of ΘΠΟΝ
for @EON. But in our case ἐν can hardly be the equivalent of
és, as Kirchhoff thinks, the meaning of és τρίτον not being
adaptable to this place; nor can it be supposed than EN is the
numeral ἕν, as we should rather expect τὸ τρίτον, viz. μέρος
τῶν ψήφων, which is what an Athenian would have said. I
think the error consists in the omission of a letter, and that we
must read πἰ[ᾶ]ν, which word may very well find a place
here, since the number of persons attending each meeting
and constituting the δᾶμον πληθύοντα was of course very
variable.

These lines give us the end of the last article of a law which
contained several articles; this may be inferred from the mention
of τὸ γράφος referring to this particular article, and of τῶνδε
γραφέων referring to the whole. If Professor Kirchhoff’s resti-
tution @(ejov is right, as I think it is, we may conjecture from
the expression καλιτέρως ἔχην πο(τ)τὸν θεόν that the object of
the law was to protect the reverence due to the god and to his
temple. In inscription No. 56, we have already an instance
of ancient regulations concerning the visitors to. the temple.
Here we see that the case of some offence is contemplated,
but we cannot determine either the nature of the offence itself,
or the class of persons to which the offender was supposed
to belong. No. 56 refers to foreigners, perhaps to non-Greeks.
Judging from this analogy, and from the mention of thearoa
in our inscription, we may perhaps surmise that the offenders in
question were strangers, possibly the very thcaroi themselves,
more especially if we are at liberty to suppose that originally
κα θεαρὸς εἴη was preceded by ὄστις. A special punishment,
it would seem, is decreed when the offender is a thearos; and
the law goes on to say that ‘should this man enter the temple,

ON TWO INSCRIPTIONS FROM OLYMPIA. 379

he is to atone with the sacrifice of an ox and with a full per-
formance of the purifying ceremony; then he may take his seat
amongst the thearot. Any judgment not following what is here
prescribed must be considered as having no executive authority.’
It seems rather strange that no punishment is inflicted on the
judge who neglects the observance of the law; but the meaning
seems to be merely this, that no authority is to alter this pre-
scription, with the exception of the body to which this power
is expressly given in the concluding article, which says that
‘A full executive power is given to the Fodtpa or decree of the
high representatives of the nation (δαμοσία), namely of the
council of the 500, in its session of the month AFAavevs, and of
a full meeting of the popular assembly (δάμῳ πληθύοντι),
whenever they proceed to a revision of the law (τῶνδε γραφέων),
to suppress some of the articles or to insert additional ones, as
it shall be judged most decorous for the god. But for amend-
ments of any kind, one-third of the votes is required for their
acceptance to give them the authority of laws.’

Τὴ. CoMPARETTI.

380 THE BATTLE OF MARATHON,

THE BATTLE OF MARATHON: 490 B.c.
‘Qua pugna nihil adhuc est nobilius’—C, ΝΈΡΟΒ.

Miuitary history proper must begin with the battle of
Marathon; it is the first battle of which history preserves for
us even a moderately detailed account in respect of the relative
numbers and equipments of the contending armies, the precise
situation and local peculiarities of the conflict, the positions of
the armies before the battle, the circumstances of the actual
collision, and the decisiveness of the result. There are un-
certainties as to the maps which should illustrate the far later
battles of Pharsalus and Philippi, that determined the fate of
the empire of the world, but we have a perfectly satisfactory
ground-plan, from the country as it still exists, of the first great
collision of Hellenic and Asiatic power on the western coast of
the Aegean. Herodotus, to whom we are chiefly indebted for
an account of it, was not a contemporary, having been born
about six years later, 484. B.c. His account, no doubt, is
meagre where informatiou would be most valuable, and he is
anything but a skilful military critic, and, like many others of
the most successful historians, he neglects details that might be
dry to make room for others not rigidly authenticated that are
pointed and picturesque. Still, even so he supplies us with
many circumstances which he might value simply for the sake
of sparkle, but that enable us by comparison with other stray
notices to divine some very critical facts about the battle, which
he himself either did not fully know, or, not duly appreciating,
failed to set down. If after study of all subsidiary information
‘duly compared and combined it seems possible to recover a
very fairly authentic account of the battle, it will be no doubt

Ἢ THE BATTLE OF MARATHON. 381

at the cost of some reduction of what is most marvellous in the
account of Herodotus; but the story will still be sufficiently
yomantic, no moderate remainder of marvel will be left, and
there is full compensation for the sacrifice in certified credibility
and historical instruction.

The overthrow of the Lydian monarchy by Cyrus (546 B.c.)
brought the Hellenic cities of Asia under Persian control; and
after the conquests of Cambyses Persia became a maritime
power. The revolt of the Ionian Greeks was finally quelled by
a naval victory; the chief islands of the Archipelago were
subdued. In anticipation of a Persian invasion of Macedonia,
which took place the next year (492 B.c.), Miltiades left the
Chersonnesus on the Hellespont, where he had ruled with in-
dependence, in succession to progenitors, and retired to Athens.
Athens had given direct provocation to Persia by supporting the
Ionian rebellion and burning Sardis; but the ruling aggressive
impulse alone would sufficientiy account for the resolution of
Darius to clear his frontier by the subjugation of the pre-
sumptuous Athenians and Lacedaemonians. Hellenic refugees
were never wanting at his court to encourage such an enterprise
by intrigue and information; and now Hippias, the expelled
Athenian tyrant, the son of Pisistratus, was particularly active.
In consequence, within four years after the suppression of
the Ionian revolt (490 B.c.), the Persian generals Datis and
Artaphernes in full command of the sea, passed over to Europe
with a large army. They first wreaked severe vengeance upon
Eretria in Euboea, and then proceeded to cross the straits to
Europe to deal like measure to the Athenians. It was now
twenty years since the tyrants had been driven out of Athens,
and the democratic constitution which owed much to Solon ha:l
been importantly settled and consolidated by the corrective
legislation of Cleisthenes. Within that period Athens had
already done much to vindicate the change by those advances
which draw forth the reflection of Herodotus—that surely
political freedom, which could so transform a state from in-
significance to dignity, is a truly energetic power. Besides the
self-reliance that was born of a successful and prosperous revolu-
tion, the energy of the democracy was braced by the conscious-
ness that the expelled tyrant was still hopeful of a reaction such
as his father had profited by before, and that the city contained

382 THE BATTLE OF MARATHON.

a party dangerously enterprizing, which was held in check
indeed, but would willingly seize an opportunity to help a
counter-revolution. The catastrophe of Eretria brought the
warning home. Athenian cleruchs, or settlers, whose assistance
had been proffered, received notice from a leading Eretrian that
dissension was certain to be fatal to his city, and they withdrew
in time across the straits to Oropus. The Persians expected to
be opposed in the open field, and putting in at some ports to
the south, disembarked the horses—the cavalry, which they had
brought over in vessels specially constructed. The Eretrians,
however, in opposition to the advice of some who urged retire-
ment to the mountains, kept their walls, and bravely repulsed
attacks for six days. Then two of the more distinguished
citizens betrayed the place to the Persians, who plundered and
burnt the temples, and reduced the inhabitants to slavery.
The lesson was well read by the Athenians. When they heard
that the enemy was passing over to the plain of Marathon, they
resolved to make at least the first resistance in the field. By
this policy they postponed certainly, and might perhaps escape,
the great danger of the presence of the hostile force before the
walls encouraging a rising of the malcontents, or treasonabie
admission of the enemy within their defences.

Two roads led from the plain of Marathon to Athens ; the best
and easiest, some twenty-six miles long—a march of between six
and seven hours only—followed the coast-line south, to turn
inland over the lower slopes of Mount Pentelicus. This was
the route which had been successfully pursued by Pisistratus,
the father of Hippias, when he regained the tyranny which he
kept till death (Herod. i. 62). The other road to the north
shorter by four miles, but scarcely carriageable, passed over
higher ground and the more difficult mountainous district.
The Athenian force was promptly thrown forward beyond the
passes, so as to occupy ground which by height, aspect, and
other circumstances was peculiarly defensible. Various notices
imply that the neighbourhood of Marathon was thickly wooded ;
the epitaph of Aeschylus mentions ‘the grove of Marathon’ ;
and both Seneca in Hippolytus (17) and Nonnus (xiii. 189)
may be trusted as merely repeating long descended poetical
tradition (καὶ τέμενος βαθύδενδρον ἐλαιοκόμου Μαραθῶνος:
and ‘Vos qua Marathon tramite laevo Saltus aperit’). These

THE BATTLE OF MARATHON, 383

obstructions were decidedly in favour of the smaller force,
which, arriving early, was enabled to take ground with good
communications and a line of retreat open behind, and every
facility for undertaking the defence of whichever pass might be
attempted. We shall probably be correct in following Cornelius
Nepos here, who assigns the adoption of this movement to the
suggestion and influence of Miltiades (Clemens Alexandrinus,
1. 29, 162, has no doubt that he got his hint from Moses), after
active discussion in the popular assembly. Here, at the
temenos of the Marathonian Heracles, they were joined by
the entire power, some thousand hoplites, of the allied city of
Plataea, otherwise the Athenians stood alone; and this aid is
variously stated as raising their total muster to 9,000 or 10,000
men. ‘The application to Lacedaemon for help—the help, in
fact, of the main power of Peloponnesus—had brought a promise
of assistance at the full of the moon, but not before; from
scruples of custom or religion the reply being given on the
ninth of the month, Unless, as is quite possible, the sincerity
of the Spartans might be doubtful, there was a great temptation
to delay ten days for so important a reinforcement. That the
temptation was resisted is characteristic of the vigour and
decision to which victory was due at last. Yet in some im-
portant respects the military maxims in vogue at Athens were
as much bound to tradition as those of Lacedaemon. The
chief command was given to ten generals in their rotation on
successive days, and the all-important question of giving battle
was committed to the vote. Miltiades was only one of the ten
generals, the leaders severally of the ten Cleisthenean tribes,
and was in a less important position than Callimachus the
polemarch, to whom a casting vote was given; and even he, if
we may trust Herodotus, owed his appointment to the chance
of the lot. A council of war, it is said, never fights, and when
a vote was taken whether a battle was to be risked—the
alternative lying between a retirement upon Athens or inaction
at least until the promised and so-highly esteemed reinforcement
from Peloponnesus should arrive—the votes were evenly divided,
and it was only by the casting vote of Callimachus that it was
decided to risk the chances of an engagement, and trust, in the
words of Justin, rather in celerity of action than in allies.

The polemarch was the archon to whom was committed the

384 THE BATTLE OF MARATHON.

duty of performing annual rites for Harmodius and Aristogiton,
the reputed quellers of tyranny (Julius Poll. 8, ix. 91), and this
enables us to recognize a pointed reference in the speech which
Herodotus makes Miltiades address to him to bring him to his
own view ;—his memory would be honoured no less than these
his proper heroes (Herod. vi. 109). To Miltiades, who secured
this decision, the generals who agreed with him also conceded
the full command upon their days ; if he acted after all only on
the day when his own turn came round, we need not doubt that
it was because there was no good strategic reason for engaging
sooner. We do not even know how near it may not have been
when the vote was taken.

Miltiades, then, was in command of a small but highly
trained and well armed force of citizens, animated by a spirit
of patriotism that was raised to full heat by animosity towards
a tyrant and his foreign allies, and by clear apprehension that
the fate of the Eretrians, and even worse, would be the con-
sequence of their subjugation. With this force he was called
upon to withstand at least, if not to conquer, an army vastly
superior in numbers, indeed what might seem overwhelming
numbers, which, include as it might an ill-assorted and half-
hearted muster of barbarians of various arms and countries,
had also a formidable nucleus of veterans accustomed to victory
in previous wars in Asia. Herodotus himself, while noticing
the inferiority of Persian arms and armour, speaks in high
terms of the military qualities of the men themselves (ix. 63).

How many days intervened between the first debarkation of
the Persians and the battle, we are not told, and calculations
that have been put forward avowedly end in only a guess, No
attempt was made to oppose their landing, and when it was
seen that the Greek commander strengthened his naturally
strong position by felled trees at several points (‘multis locis,’
C. Nepos), the Persians may have hesitated either to attack
him directly or to expose themselves to a flank attack by
attempting the coast road.

Among the motives that influenced Hippias in counselling
the debarkation on the coast of Marathon, was the suitability
of the plain for the operations and movements of cavalry.
The line of coast’ was sheltered by a projecting promontory,
and deep water close in gave facility for landing. ‘I'he plain itself,

THE BATTLE OF MARATHON. 385

in front of an amphitheatre of rocky hills, is six miles long and
never less than a mile and a half broad. It might be traversed
in two hours by a march along the sea, a torrent that divided
it midway giving no obstruction of consequence ; a morass at
the southern extremity is dry at the end of summer, and it was
now about the 12th of September; another much larger, some
miles square, was at the northern extremity, and impassable by
a multitude—but this would be left in the rear. From the
description of Pausanias we judge its condition to have been
worse in antiquity than at present. Over the open plain, then,
cavalry could career and might be counted upon to harass a
heavy armed force like that of the Greeks, or interrupt com-
munications and cover advancing infantry. Datis and Arta-
phernes had provided horse transports in Asia, and indeed
Herodotus tells us that the cavalry had been disembarked in
Euboea in anticipation of a battle there in the field. When
then we find no mention of cavalry being concerned in the
battle of Marathon, and indeed an implication (χωρὶς ἵππων),
however enigmatical, that they were not, the inference is clear
that the Persians were attacked before they had power to
complete, or while they were in process of completing or
entirely changing their proposed arrangements. It is in ac-
cordance with the suggestion that they may have contemplated
a change of basis, that we do not read of any camp to be either
assailed or plundered after the victory, nothing of an abandon-
ment by the defeated of any of that store of rich appointments
that the satraps were wont to take with them to warfare. It may
be fairly assumed that the celerity of Miltiades had already taken
the enemy by surprise, and that Hippias was disappointed in
finding that the passes were to be seriously defended; under
these circumstances, after the experience at Eretria and the
knowledge that at Athens there was quite as unscrupulous a
Medizing party, there was manifestly an inducement to divert
the attack—to take advantage of the command of the sea, and
gain Athens in the absence of its army.

The battle itself then is thus described by Herodotus :—‘ The
Athenians were arrayed in order of battle, Callimachus the
polemarch leading the right wing according to Athenian usage ;
[his tribe was that of Aiantis, and he would be at its head, Plut.
Sympos, 1, x. 3] the other tribes followed in order of enumera-

386 THE BATILE OF MARATHON.

tion ;’ the expression of the historian seems to imply that there
was a certain established sequence. The Plataeans were posted
at the left wing. The front was extended to equal that of the
Medes, and this was done at the expense of the centre, where
the files were reduced, while those of either wing were
strengthened. ‘When the array was completed,’ says Herodotus,
‘and the sacrifices were favourable and the Athenians were sent
forward, they advanced against the barbarians at a run,’—the
distance between the two armies being not less than eight stadia,
that is, more than three quarters of a mile. ‘The Persiaus seeing
them coming on at a run, set about preparing to receive them ;
and as they saw how, so few in numbers as they were, they were
running to the attack unprovided with either cavalry or archers,
they ascribed it to fatal insanity.’ But as soon as the Athenians
eame into conflict with the barbarians they fought bravely
nevertheless; ‘for they were the first of a!l the Hellenes as far as
we know who charged their enemies at a run, and the first to
bear looking upon the Median costume ; for till then the very
name of Medes was a terror to the Hellenes. The fighting at
Marathon went on some considerable time; and the barbarians
had the better at the centre, where the Persians and Sacae were
stationed, and broke their opponents and pursued them towards
the country. But the Athenians conquered at one extremity
and the Plataeans at the other, and then both wings wheeling
about engaged those who had broken their centre; and the
Athenians conquered and followed the flying Persians with
slaughter up to the shore, and there they attacked the ships and
were calling for fire. Herodctus seems to be borrowing this
last cident from the attack of Hector on the galley of Pro-
tesilaus in the Zliad. Here Callimachus was killed and another
general, and Cynegeirus son of Euphorion—brother he of
Aeschylus, who also was among the combatants. In result the
Athenians seized seven ships and destroyed 6,400 of their
enemies, losing themselves 192 only. A large proportion of
the Persian force still succeeded in re-embarking, and their fleet
passed over at once to Euboea and put on board the captives, the
guarding of whom must have occupied a part of their army.
After some delay, however speedily, they sailed round Sunium
in. response to a signal from traitors in the city, by the
elevation of a shield—probably a bright shield, the ancient

THE BATTLE OF MARATHON. 387

helio-telegraph—from a height; they found, however, that the
victorious army had had time to return, and was prepared to
oppose them, leaving them no course but to go back to Asia.
Herodotus is quite certain that the Alcmaeonid relatives of
Pericles were accused falsely of exhibiting a signal to the
invaders, but he concedes to the accusers that such a signal
was really made, and so by implication leaves their party
chargeable with it. It may even have been due to the signal
being descried that the movement was made which brought
on the battle.

Such is the story of the battle as Herodotus relates it, and in
which we may be prepared to assume a large alloy of inaccuracy
and considerable incompleteness. We discern very plain traces of
his notorious love for a little extravagance in what he says of
the terror of Greeks at the Median aspect; and after this we
may be excused for thinking it possible that he overstrained his
authority elsewhere, and that the Athenian heavy-armed men
did not start at a run for a charge of near a mile. The true
state of the case however is discernible enough if we take the
conditions of it into independent consideration. In the first
place there was no doubt a motive for quickened advance in the
fact that the great strength of the Persians lay in archery, of
which the Greek force was destitute, and after it was within
bowshot every moment saved was of consequence ; on the other
hand, when once at close quarters the long stalwart spear and
superior body armour, and trained and well-breathed vigour of
the hoplite gave him that advantage which Aristagoras had
prophetically declared should make him master of the Persian
empire (Herod. v. 49). But that Miltiades, who, however eager,
had not hastened to engage as soon as the votes had given him
the power to do so whenever he liked, was now so seemingly
precipitate, was due to a further—to a master motive. It is
not to be doubted that he well knew that his main chance of
success depended—considering the odds against him—in watch-
ing for a favourable opportunity for action, which with his small
army he could not attempt to force, and upon seizing it as soon
as offered. If when he did attack his advance was made with
such rapidity as to be susceptible of exaggeraticn to an extent
to satisfy Herodotus, this is confirmation of his plan in waiting,
no less than of his masterly outlook ; as opportunities in war

388 THE BATTLE OF MARATHON.

especially when battle is engaged or to be engaged, are ad-
vantages only for those who command a promptitude that is
measurable by minutes. It is more difficult to divine with cer-
tainty, but not to conjecture with very considerable probability,
what may have been the nature of the opportunity offered.
We know, as will appear, that the Persian position was close to .
the northern morass to their right, which might naturally be
counted upon by them as a defence upon that side, as it was
here that their ships were protected by the curving promontory
of Cynosura, which shut in the bay from the north. Their vast
numbers must have covered considerable ground, and the
probability appears to be that Miltiades waited and watched
for the time when movement was in progress, and they would
not have time to extricate and to develop their array before he
should be upon them. His own position no doubt was well in
their view, and his first movement out of his intrenchments must
have been visible ; and that the Persians were not utterly un-
prepared is proved by the proper Persian troops and the Sacae
occupying their established position in the centre ; this however
is quite consistent with the entire army of the barbarians
occupying an imprudently confined position. So much is
indeed implied by it being possible for Miltiades to spread
out his small force with any hope of presenting an equal front,
which still was an essential of his plan and project of battle.
What that plan was is indeed clear upon a little closer consider-
ation than has usually been given to the subject. He was able
to count on the discipline of his men and the coolness of their
commanders, and we find that he could determine in consequence
not merely the direction of the first onset, but how it was to be
followed up. He knew that the most formidable strength of
the enemy was, according to their custom, certain to be in their
centre, but counted on foiling this, not by concentrating his own
chief strength against their best troops, but by declining collision
with them—in fact by refusing their attack. With this intention,
and in just reliance that the commanders there, who were in
fact Aristides and probably Themistocles, would duly second it,
he could venture to reduce his own centre. Accordingly it
appears certain from the small number of his slain that the
victorious pursuit by the Persians here was chiefly and at best
a driving in of ranks which obeyed instructions in standing on

THE BATTLE OF MARATHON. 389

the defensive, and were prepared to give ground rather than
expose themselves to be uselessly crushed. In strengthening
his flanks Miltiades hurled his chief power upon those divisions
of the enemy which could offer least resistance, and which he
foresaw had only to be thrown into confusion to spread confusion
from one point to another and involve the whole. He suddenly
engaged the Persian multitudinous levies where there was no
retreat open for them by land, where the struggle to escape if a
panic could only be excited would carry them crowding to the
ships, or hurry them as it did in hundreds and thousands into
the morass. The valour of the Persians in the centre was
unavailing when they were exposed to attack at either flank
disengaged from the main body, and at the rear were pressed
upon by the terror-stricken crowds that, thrown out of all order
and cohesion, were striving to escape from the compact, well-
armed, active, and impetuous hoplites.

The terms of Herodotus are such as naturally convey the
impression that the armies were drawn out on either side and
put in array with all deliberateness. He again says nothing of
how importantly the morass contributed to the seriousness of
the Persian catastrophe, and therefore while bewildering us with
an almost inconceivable achievement of Athenian valour, fails
altogether to do justice to the sagacious generalship of Miltiades.
But we have a witness on the point who may not lightly be
challenged. The battle of Marathon was the subject of one of
the chief pictures which gave its name to the Poecile, or painted
Stoa at Athens. In this Pausanias recognized the Plataeans
along with the Athenians in full conflict with the barbarians.
At one end the fight still raged on even terms, further on or in
the background, the barbarians were shown in full flight and
pushing each other into the marsh; at the other end of the
picture the fugitives were being slaughtered by the Greeks as
they were gaining the Phoenician ships. Callimachus and
Miltiades were conspicuous among the combatants, together
with an heroic personage, Echetlus or Echetlaeus — repre-
sentative of one who was said to have been seen in rustic garb
while killing the enemies with a plough, and afterwards to have
disappeared. The eponymous Marathon was also introduced,
with Heracles, who was connected with the place by various
legends as well as by his local worship and temple, and the

390 THE BATTLE OF MARATHON.

goddess Athene. The rudely clothed and armed Echetlus seems
to be a substitute for Heracles—as if legendary spirit were too
much weakened to venture on asserting what it would fain have
risked, that Heracles himself was personally helpful, but would
not be denied entirely, and provided a substitute of reduced
dignity. Herodotus is silent about Echetlus, but has his own
marvellous tale, which he reports at second hand: he had heard,
he says, of an Athenian who ascribed his loss of sight to
mere proximity to a daemonic combatant on the opposite side
who passed him by to kill the man behind him. The painter
of the Stoa was of course at liberty to draw on imagination to
any extent for such supernatural interpositions, but the stories
which could gain popular acceptation are important historical
warnings of how far commonplace facts could be suppressed or
changed in their favour. Kven Pausanias, who visited the place
centuries after, assures us, no doubt after what he held to be
satisfactory assurance, that the noise of battle was to be heard
every night on the plain. Herodotus mentions in simple terms
enough the daring of Cynaegeirus, who had his hand cut off with
an axe as he seized the ornamental prow of a ship, and there
perished; but by the time the tale had reached Justin, after
becoming a wearisome commonplace meantime, his pertinacity
had been exaggerated to absurdity. All know or have oppor-
tunities of knowing, the contradictory versions of the incidents
of Waterloo, and when Col. Chesney undertook to give a dis-
passionate analysis of the campaign which led to it and the
operations which decided it, the despatches of the commander-
in-chief of even the victorious army were scarcely if at all
quoted by him, and the memoirs of the conquered Emperor,
and the formal and dignified histories, are still less trusted.
Herodotus is our substitute as witness nearest to the time for
such contemporary commentaries and documents, and he, we find,
is open to correction by information supplied by a contemporary
of the Emperor Hadrian. Pausanias visiting Marathon finds
the marsh, he calls it even a marshy lake, with certain paths
across it. It was by ignorance of these paths, he says, that the
flying barbarians fell into the morass, where it was in con-
sequence that the greatest slaughter occurred. He concludes
his local description by saying that a little beyond the plain is
the mountain of Pan and a cave worth a visit: the entrance to

THE BATTLE OF MARATHON. 391

10 1s narrow, but within are cells, baths, and the so-called goat
flock of Pan, rocks, that is, with certain resemblance to goats.
Pan therefore had local relations to Marathon, and this goes
some way to explain the suggestion of another story.

Herodotus relates that Pheidippides, the herald whom the
Athenian generals despatched to Sparta for assistance, reported
on his return that when he was on the Parthenian mountain
above Tegea, he heard his name called by the god Pan, who
bade him expostulate with the Athenians for having neglected
him—him who was friendly to them, had been helpful to them
before, and would again be. It was in consequence ef this
announcement that after their success the Athenians constructed
a sanctuary for Pan below the Acropolis and propitiated him
with annual sacrifices and a lamp race. The site of this cave
is shown on coins, and can be still recognized. So far only
Herodotus ; but Athenaeus preserves a scolion sung in honour
of Pan as contributor to the victory (694 D)—and we have the
epigramn by Simonides for a votive statue ;—

‘Me, the goatfooted Pan, the Arcadian, to Medians hostile,
To the Athenians an aid, here has Miltiades set.’

The Anthelogia (iv. xii. p. 353) gives another epigram in the
name of the Athenians alone. That of Miltiades was still more
likely in a city such as Athens to excite invidious comment than
the later imprudent inscription of Pausanias on the Delphic
dedication for the victory of Plataea. His future misfortunes
were largely due to the fact that he gave offence to the demus,
or at least was represented offensively to the demus, ever
only too susceptible of jealousy on such score, as claiming the
merit of the victory exclusively for himself.

Still none of these authorities indicate how and in what
manner particularly it was that Pan helped the Athenians
against the overwhelming multitudes of the Median army, and
modern commentators on the battle have hitherto been careless
to inquire. Yet it is upon this point that the decision of this
important, this typical battle between Europeans and Asiatics,
on which the future relation of European civilization to bar-
barism was dependent, turned. Thucydides (iv. 125) notices
the peculiar liability of large armies to sudden and unreason-
able panics; and this tendency is enhanced naturally when the

392 THE BATTLE OF MARATIION.

force is not only not homogeneous, but comprises—as we may
fairly assume from what is said of the distinguished quality
of the Persians and Sacae—a large proportion of very secondary
troops, and those held in union by no bonds of true patriotic
or even military spirit. The help which the god Pan was
considered to have given must be confidently interpreted as
the excitement of that panic-terror which threw the wings of
the Median array into confusion, and in consequence hampered
and made frustrate the valour and success of the centre, and
hurried thousands to destruction, trampling upon one another,
and urging masses forward to perish in the fatal morass.
It is not required to enter here at length into the origin of
the ascription of such terrors to Pan, the god of uncultivated
wilds, or to cite the numerous allusions to the exploits of
the god from the assistance which he rendered to the Olym-
pians in their contest against the Titans, till Ovid wrote the
lines—

‘Ipse deus velox discurrere gaudet in altis
Montibus ; et subitas concitat 1116 fugas. —Fast. 11.

Armies, troops, which justly merit the title of barbarian
from deficiency of higher moral inspiration or self-confidence,
are doubtless most susceptible, not always of alarm at a direct
attack, however formidable, but of panic at unexpected attack,
at failure of expected support, at access of confusion among
disordered ranks and masses, at consciousness of a line of retreat
being threatened if not cut off, difficult or non-existent. This
is but an exaggeration of the liability of the very best troops
to be shaken by an unexpected attack, or especially by an
attack in flank ; and it is in this respect that the history of the
most successful conflicts of disciplined troops of civilized nations
against barbarian numbers constantly repeats the story of
Marathon. The general, like Miltiades, watches his opportunity,
or makes it, and when it comes strikes hard and strikes rapidly,
but strikes chiefly in such a direction as he counts on to probably
create confusion—a panic-terror—and then the greater part of
his work is done for him by the flying and frightened crowds
of the enemies themselves. Against the sudden shock and
surprising hardihood of the Athenian attack the Persian army,
composed as it was, might have been unable to stand even had

THE BATTLE OF MARATHON. 393

it had time to deploy and open out on fuller ground; receiving
the attack as it did, it was infallibly ‘rolled up.’

Considering, therefore, all the circumstances, it is reasonable
enough to believe that Miltiades, knowing well the composition
and characteristics of the army which he had to oppose from
his experience during the earier Persian invasion of Europe
by the Bosphorus, had a distinct apprehension from the first
news of the debarkation of the enemy at Marathon of how
they might be most effectively met and most probably foiled.
It is quite intelligible that when all was achieved he could
look back at the primary difficulties which he had encountered
in the city and at the camp, with full consciousness that to
his own strength of character it was due that these were over-
come—as it was due to his own individual sagacity, promptitude,
and courage above all, that the battle concluded as a victory
and that Hellas and civilization were so far saved. It was im-
prudent of him to let these, his inevitable convictions, find open
expression in speech or bearing ; but if ever a general was entitled
to refer to a victory as his victory, surely it was Miltiades in
speaking of Marathon.

Wellington was wiser, who did not disturb the popular con-
ception of the victory of Waterloo as due exclusively to dogged
British valour against the full power of Napoleon’s army; to
have proclaimed from the housetops that it was mainly due
to his own sagacious and touching reliance on the pertinacity
of Blucher and on his fulfilment at all hazards of his promise
to render that help which occupied im time the French reserves,
would only have puzzled, if it did not also affront, his country-
men. As it was they were all the more eager to be grateful to
him because he let them take the chief merit to themselves.

Herodotus, we have seen, avers that the Athenians were the
first who endured to face the Medes undisinayed ; there may
be in this statement some of the exaggeration which has been
charged upon it, but there need be no limit to our admiration
for the free citizens of the little state who could confront the
multitudinous army of conquerors of Asia, Egypt, and Ionia,
and that not merely in the noble but headlong despair that
prefers death to subjection, but in reliance that any superiority
in numbers whatever was open to be countervailed by discipline,
vigour, and valour, if only animated and guided by intelligence.

ΕΠ 01... I, DD

394 THE BATTLE OF MARATHON.

The victory was no doubt largely due to the leading of Miltiades,
and none could have known that fact better than himself, after
the difficulties he had had to contend with in his own camp. He
was accused of assuming and asserting the merit too exclusively ;
the accusation may have been unjust—it would be but a de-
monstration of that popular jealousy which was likely to arise
without cause, and that it were wise to have avoided furnishing
with provocation. But whether the Athenians were unjust or
not to their great captain, assuredly they were entitled to great
glory on their own part. When we consider what proofs of
power and of vindictiveness the Persians had already given on
the one hand, on the other that there was an oligarchical party
of the Pisistratids who could have brought the city into favour
with the great King if only into subjection, it is clear that the
democracy distinctly accepted the most desperate issue. The
Athenians had extermination staring them in the face as the
most probable consequence of resistance, and they chose
deliberately to encounter this, after doing their best to avert it,
rather than be enslaved. Freedom in life if possible, freedom
in death if it must be so; such was the resolve that in later
ages wrested the emancipation of Greece from the brutalized
tyranny of Turkey—in the very face of the cynicism of the
Great Powers.

It is interesting to compare the battle of Marathon with that
of Arbela, the earliest recorded conflict in battle of Greek and
Persian with the last, the first successful check to aggression
with the retaliation that was ruinous, the achievement of the
Greek who set the first example of intelligence, guiding disci-
plime, and dash on a field of pitched battle against barbarians,
with that of the great Macedonian who under circumstances
very similar, though exaggerated in proportions, carried the
combination of the practice and the art of war to the highest
perfection they ever attained im antiquity.

At Arbela as at Marathon the Grecks were excessively
outnumbered, and thus exposed to the danger of being out-
tianked ; Alexander provided against this by a second or reserve
line prepared and instructed to wheel round and present a face
towards either flank as required; and then by the tactics of
dechuing conflict with one opposed wing as long as possible,
uliless so far as was required to keep it occupied, while lie

THE BATTLE OF MARATHON. 395

directed a furious attack on the enemy’s right, and thence,
while his own flank was protected by his second line, on the
fiank of the opposed centre. Again, and for the last time and
fatally, the Persian was unable to withstand the Greek m a
hand-to-hand conflict, and again the panic-fear of a multitude
rendered the desperate valour of particular sections unavailing.

ΜΝ WaAtrkiss ΠΟΥ.

Tice: in τῶν afi lyiliianed ie 1]

ett) χανε | Ddoges rik fiadbetternyoaive
lampaiadtini | ta! | estincnt fh ιδαομίημλο, poorest |
soancnnt cps), tab κοὐ μω diag) αλεψέψεμεις Jain aomriai δε q ‘
Tou {assay ate i ἼΟΙ ἐδ addy oie “hi μαῖς, νἰδηρ
Nit gener Plaiadt: pani terol am pall

y F 4 ' po
rresaaksd aka tf wy raat, & rhe A th
J γ rt ὁ 4 Ϊ j
5 -᾿ μδῳ “4 5
᾿ Σ ' 9
ne ' b nh ἷ * wi Ve Abo 81 ng ΠῚ SAAT
δι. ye
A " THe .F CPERMI
ἐ “ἢ τ ἃ
i ἐ ees { vie μ᾽ :
' b
a 4 nt γ᾿
‘ ate
ε . ι i

ἡ ες
Ἷ ; ἣ τὰ TU
νι ἵ . iy!
F ἃ
ἃ
τὰ
Tarr yh
: Ν
1 be ;
-
»} i
} 4 )
Sak
‘i if ἣ
’
he we
ῥ ἐν
ἢ 4 ‘i
i ν᾿ { Ν ἡ
1
i% i
}
ἔ (hh ' he, ἱ nve
} < ba }
‘ rt ae ὲ ἡ ΠΝ ἰ 9). " SO
ἡ. Three wont hi the κηροῦ {ἃ
"i i τ υὐ,ἢ ' ἥ «ωὡϑ rl ἣ ba
At ᾿ ANID AM λυ εἴν ἡ ἀπ ἐ ἢ Ly 7G λὲν ὦ ἕν
’ rh Mth μι JRO LEIA Cat hee. Shue Pal Ll “un ᾿ | pote a We ty
λυ CERI T oAlyatitt aN μον εκ ἀχνὰ ἐλ δῶ ἣν the yh
᾿ ρου αν ἩΤΡ COM REM RLY ραν | ἀρ τα Ἃ

κα γώ eta fan 4 rig ρὸν ε λιω it ood pli

ut:

᾿
="

THE 1 PALI GETTY MUSEUM LIBRARY JAN 2 3 197

3 312 3474

5 00098

EE eee

Ci
7

LLY 2 |
4 hs f Z ; Ze gy
22 , 5
73

Sy)
AS
Νὴ

ἣν

>
ὃν

ἊΝ
SAN

Ve

Hite
Peper ie bee
LL,

os

ΡΟ;

7
Loe fea “7 : A,

᾿Ξ
Gif

Cea
y tie
“72
222
PLZ

ee
EEE
"τς Eos

A ee Pe